Sense, Reason, Act: The Fibric Execution Model
Read the available situation, form a validated proposal, and check authority before a supported action runs.
An AI recommendation is useful. Authority to change a record is a separate matter.
Fibric, the platform that powers BearScope, separates sensing the situation, reasoning over it, and executing a validated plan. This model applies to supported governed actions. It does not mean that every interaction in the BearScope interface or every operation in a connected system runs through the same executor.
Sense: use the available context
A workflow begins with records or events it is authorized to read. A conversation, an order, or an internal work item can supply context through a configured connection.
Source scope and freshness matter. Missing data limits what the workflow can establish. The AI should not turn an unavailable field into a customer promise.
Reason: propose the next step
The model interprets the context and proposes a plan. For an internal work item, that might be a supported record change. It remains a proposal until the required checks and execution complete.
In Letra, saved discussion and daily decisions can make analysis reviewable. A shadow decision records a proposed next step without acting. Reading it as completed work skips the boundary that matters.
Check: validate permission and policy
Fibric’s deterministic executor checks the validated plan against the required authority and configured policy. Missing permission or a failed trust check blocks execution. Human approval applies where required for the supported action.
Connecting a source does not grant the AI permission to write to it. A customer reply, refund, replacement, or carrier trace needs a capability that supports that effect and the authority to use it.
Act: record what happened
For an authorized action, the executor uses the configured capability and connector. Single-flight coordinates execution on the same entity; idempotency keys identify repeated operations. Execution records show the reported result.
The useful distinction is between what the model proposed and what the action path confirmed. An internal record update is evidence of that update, not evidence of an unrelated customer-facing effect.
| Stage | Question your team should be able to answer |
|---|---|
| Sense | Which records or event supplied the context? |
| Reason | What did the model propose? |
| Check | Was the action supported and authorized? |
| Act | What result did execution report? |
See the security controls or book a demo to inspect one supported governed action in the context of your workflow.
See the work in BearScope.
Choose a workflow. We’ll demonstrate the current views, review your sources, and agree what a pilot should measure.
Book a walkthrough →