Managed IT Service Graph
Compose client-isolated infrastructure and service references with explicit authoritative data routing.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
4 bundles · 12 layers · 12 findings · 36 questions
Tenant and service boundary Bounded graph concerns: tenant and service boundary
Client and provider identities
Authored composition-profile design for client and provider identities. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Client and provider identities
Authored composition-profile design for client and provider identities. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which client Dimension and provider organization does this graph describe? identity
- Who is the current graph steward and what evidence authorizes administration? ownership
- Which shared resources are referenced without transferring their ownership to this client? constraint
Service responsibility
Authored composition-profile design for service responsibility. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Service responsibility
Authored composition-profile design for service responsibility. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- What bounded service outcome is represented by this graph? definition
- Which provider roles perform work and which party remains accountable? relationship
- Which services or subcontractor obligations are explicitly outside this graph? exception
Asset identity and recognition
Authored composition-profile design for asset identity and recognition. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Asset identity and recognition
Authored composition-profile design for asset identity and recognition. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which authoritative identifier distinguishes this asset from similarly named resources? identity
- Is the referenced item physical equipment, a virtual resource or a service endpoint? classification
- How was the identity match observed and how are ambiguous matches quarantined? evidence
Dependencies and observations Bounded graph concerns: dependencies and observations
Service-to-asset dependencies
Authored composition-profile design for service-to-asset dependencies. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Service-to-asset dependencies
Authored composition-profile design for service-to-asset dependencies. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which service depends on which asset and in what direction? relationship
- Under which condition and time interval is this dependency valid? constraint
- Is the dependency declared, observed or inferred and what uncertainty remains? quality
Declared and observed state
Authored composition-profile design for declared and observed state. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Declared and observed state
Authored composition-profile design for declared and observed state. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- What desired state is declared by the configuration authority? state
- What actual state was observed and by which method? measurement
- How is a discrepancy retained without overwriting desired or observed state? validation
Bounded impact assessment
Authored composition-profile design for bounded impact assessment. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Bounded impact assessment
Authored composition-profile design for bounded impact assessment. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which directed dependency paths are traversed for this impact question? process
- Which missing or stale edges limit the confidence of the impact result? quality
- Who reviews an inferred impact before it authorizes an operational action? decision
Authoritative data and changes Bounded graph concerns: authoritative data and changes
Per-fact mastership
Authored composition-profile design for per-fact mastership. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Per-fact mastership
Authored composition-profile design for per-fact mastership. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which one owning Dimension and master system govern this fact path at this time? ownership
- What approved evidence defines that master assignment and its precedence? authority
- What happens when mastership is unknown or equally authoritative sources disagree? exception
Routed change lifecycle
Authored composition-profile design for routed change lifecycle. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Routed change lifecycle
Authored composition-profile design for routed change lifecycle. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- To which master endpoint is the proposed change routed under the current grant? process
- Which version precondition and retry key protect the change from stale writes or duplication? constraint
- What authoritative acknowledgement or readback proves that the change took effect? event
External work tracking
Authored composition-profile design for external work tracking. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
External work tracking
Authored composition-profile design for external work tracking. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which master task identifier links the work record to the affected service? identity
- Which task fields are projections and which remain authoritative in the work system? state
- How is an unavailable or failed task update kept distinct from a completed change? exception
Projection and provider lifecycle Bounded graph concerns: projection and provider lifecycle
Authorized cross-Dimension view
Authored composition-profile design for authorized cross-dimension view. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Authorized cross-Dimension view
Authored composition-profile design for authorized cross-dimension view. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which recipient, purpose, objects and fields are permitted in this projection? access
- How fresh is the projected view and when must it expire or be rechecked? temporal
- How are revocation, deletion and derived sensitive relationships handled by this view? privacy
Provider change and handover
Authored composition-profile design for provider change and handover. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Provider change and handover
Authored composition-profile design for provider change and handover. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which authority acceptance and cutover evidence allow a new provider to take over? lifecycle
- Which object identifiers and historical master references must survive handover? identity
- Which previous grants and connector credentials must be revoked and verified? security
Graph completeness and audit
Authored composition-profile design for graph completeness and audit. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
Graph completeness and audit
Authored composition-profile design for graph completeness and audit. Cited sources motivate distinctions; these field groups are not asserted to be mandated verbatim by those sources.
- Which graph invariants have been checked and which checks remain unimplemented? validation
- Which source revisions and approvals explain each material graph change? provenance
- Which exported fields are preserved, transformed or lost by a destination adapter? interoperability
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- World Models
- Category
- Cross-cutting context
- Entry kind
- aggregate
- Navigation path
- NAV.XCT.ITG
- Domain
- XCT.ITG
- Industry
- Cross-industry
- Tags
- manageditservicegraphxct.itgmanaged client it infrastructure mastership and service graph
- Also called
- Managed client IT infrastructure mastership and service graph
What it is Filled
A bounded service-provider/client graph profile. It records tenant boundary, service/asset references, dependencies, desired versus observed state, per-fact mastership, routed change outcomes, and authorized projections. It does not become a competing CMDB or authorization engine.
In scope
- Client and provider relationship references
- Typed service-to-asset dependencies
- Per-fact owning Dimension and master-system mapping
- Source-qualified observations and change outcomes
- Purpose-bound projections and handover evidence
Out of scope
- Full asset, party, ownership, task or contract lifecycles
- Implemented IAM, CMDB, discovery, Jira connector or distributed transaction engine
- Automatic legal ownership transfer or proof of client acceptance
- Universal infrastructure schema or full Redfish conformance
Why it exists Filled
Compose client-isolated infrastructure and service references with explicit authoritative data routing.
Distinguishing features Filled
- A provider-client view of services and assets, not a CMDB or asset master.
- Records which system masters each fact and routes changes there.
- Keeps desired and observed state apart.
- Enforces client isolation in a multi-tenant provider context.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Access or mix data across clients.
- Store credentials in graph records.
- Retry a non-idempotent change after a timeout without reconciling.
- Change facts whose owner or identity is unresolved.
- Treat the graph as proof of client acceptance or ownership.
Only with a human decision
- Approving changes to production systems.
- Provider handover to another provider.
- Resolving ownership conflicts.
May
- Register a graph for a client within declared policy.
- Route proposed changes to the owning master system.
- Build projections allowed for a given role and purpose.
- Reconcile observed state with desired state and report drift.
Moral aspects Filled
- Clients entrust providers with access to critical systems; isolation failures can expose many organizations.
- Outages caused by wrong changes affect people who depend on client services.
- Provider lock-in through incomplete handover harms clients.
Who is affected
- Client organizations and their users
- Provider staff
- End customers of client services
Owners Filled
Steward
Stable Dimension namespace
Roles
- owner
- Approve scope and delegations
- steward
- Maintain source mappings and resolve conflicts
- operator
- Execute only separately authorized changes
- verifier
- Check evidence, invariants and unresolved gaps
- projection-consumer
- Read only approved purpose-bound views
Links to other meta-models Filled
composes
- vr.wm-xct-001 - Control and stewardship assertions for referenced Dimension and resources
- vr.wm-xct-003 - Projection and disclosure constraints
- vr.wm-xct-037 - Typed dependency and bounded impact semantics
neighbor
- Ownership / Stewardship - Reference control assertions; administration does not imply title or client acceptance.
- Dependency / Impact - Reference typed dependency semantics; domain profile supplies tenant/master boundaries, not universal impact calculus.
- Redfish and CMDB - Reference infrastructure identities and observations; adapters and their schema versions are separately validated.
- Task and service case - Link work IDs; do not copy task state as an independently editable authority.
requires
- vr.wm-xct-001
- vr.wm-xct-003
- vr.wm-xct-037
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Authoritative master-system identifier
- Stable Dimension-scoped identifier
- Attributed external alias with identity evidence
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.
Recognition optional Filled
- A service graph has a client tenant, provider, service and asset nodes, dependencies and per-fact master references.
- Confused with a CMDB, a monitoring topology and an asset inventory.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Register graph: Register graph within the declared Dimension policy.
- Route proposed change: Route proposed change within the declared Dimension policy.
- Build permitted projection: Build permitted projection within the declared Dimension policy.
- Record provider handover: Record provider handover within the declared Dimension policy.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Cross-tenant data leak.
- Duplicate or conflicting changes after timeouts.
- Outages from wrong dependency data.
- Lost knowledge at provider handover.
Standards and interfaces required Filled
- DMTF Redfish.
- DMTF Common Information Model.
- ISO/IEC 20000-1 service management.
- ISO/IEC 19770 IT asset management.
Context of use required Filled
- Ownership, retention and contractual authority require the adopting organization legal/policy profile; no jurisdictional rule is inferred.
Sources Filled
- Vercy agent entry contract - Vercy
- Vercy model agent protocol - Vercy
- PROV-O - W3C
- ODRL Information Model - W3C
- Redfish standards overview - DMTF
- HTTP Semantics - IETF
Open questions
- Executable nested schemas and tenant-isolation negative fixtures
- Versioned CMDB/Redfish/Jira adapters and operational readback tests
- Nested data-group schemas and executable graph/IAM enforcement are not supplied.
- Redfish source is the standards overview; concrete DSP schema mapping is not claimed.
- No production Jira, discovery, CMDB or revocable-cache adapter is implemented.
- External independent research results are admitted only if available and validated; assurance remains reviewable-draft.
- Claude timed out after one 60-second attempt; Grok returned provider-error after one bounded attempt. A separate Codex no-tools audit reviewed the supplied design summary, not source truth or executable behavior.
Machine files
Provenance
world-models research · reviewable-draft
Built from: models/wm-xct-039-managed-it-service-graph/spec.yaml, ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-xct-039-managed-it-service-graph.json