Skip to content
ConversionIQ Docs

Documentation Hub as Runtime Contract System

Purpose

Section titled “Purpose”

This document defines how the Documentation Hub should function in the future platform architecture.

The Documentation Hub is not only for humans. It should evolve into a governed contract system that:

  • defines platform behavior
  • informs runtime decisions
  • captures structured improvement proposals

Related docs:

Three roles of the Documentation Hub

Section titled “Three roles of the Documentation Hub”

1) Source of truth

Section titled “1) Source of truth”

The Documentation Hub is the canonical human-reviewable definition of:

  • architecture and boundaries
  • domain rules
  • workflow contracts
  • prompts and AI behavior policies
  • component and route contracts
  • API and persistence contracts
  • approval and escalation rules

This is the normative layer of the platform.

2) Runtime input

Section titled “2) Runtime input”

Approved documentation should become a usable runtime input for:

  • workflow resolution
  • prompt assembly
  • policy checks
  • action constraints
  • recommendation logic
  • fallback and escalation rules

This means the runtime can read documentation-derived contracts directly or through compiled policy artifacts.

3) Learning output

Section titled “3) Learning output”

The system should produce structured proposals based on runtime evidence, including:

  • workflow improvement suggestions
  • prompt refinement proposals
  • architecture gap identification
  • policy mismatch warnings
  • documentation drift signals

This means the platform can write to the improvement pipeline, not necessarily directly to canonical docs.

Canonical rule: proposals, not silent mutation

Section titled “Canonical rule: proposals, not silent mutation”

The future system must distinguish between:

  • observed behavior
  • recommended change
  • approved canonical contract

Those are not the same thing.

Required rule:

  • runtime systems may read canonical docs
  • runtime systems may generate structured update proposals
  • canonical documentation should not be silently rewritten by live behavior without a review or policy gate

Why this distinction matters

Section titled “Why this distinction matters”

If runtime directly rewrites the Documentation Hub, the platform may accidentally:

  • encode bugs as official behavior
  • replace policy with temporary implementation quirks
  • weaken compliance language
  • create unreviewed drift across architecture, prompts, and workflows

The Documentation Hub must remain the approved truth layer, not a passive log of whatever happened most recently.

Section titled “Recommended operating model”
flowchart TD
  canonicalDocs[CanonicalDocs]
  runtimePolicies[RuntimePolicies]
  runtimeExecution[RuntimeExecution]
  learningSignals[LearningSignals]
  proposalEngine[ProposalEngine]
  reviewGate[ReviewGate]


  canonicalDocs --> runtimePolicies
  runtimePolicies --> runtimeExecution
  runtimeExecution --> learningSignals
  learningSignals --> proposalEngine
  proposalEngine --> reviewGate
  reviewGate --> canonicalDocs

Canonical docs

Section titled “Canonical docs”

Human-reviewable system contracts.

Runtime policies

Section titled “Runtime policies”

Resolved and executable policy artifacts derived from approved docs.

Runtime execution

Section titled “Runtime execution”

Orchestrated system behavior operating within approved bounds.

Learning signals

Section titled “Learning signals”

Observed usage, outcomes, failures, and recommendation opportunities.

Proposal engine

Section titled “Proposal engine”

Transforms observations into candidate updates.

Review gate

Section titled “Review gate”

Human or policy-driven approval before the canonical docs are changed.

Practical documentation categories

Section titled “Practical documentation categories”

To act as a runtime contract system, the docs hub must maintain strong boundaries across:

  • docs/architecture/**
  • docs/domains/**
  • docs/routes/**
  • docs/components/**
  • docs/api/**
  • docs/prompts/**
  • docs/workflows/**
  • docs/ops/**
  • docs/rebuild/**
  • docs/ai-governance/**

Each category must answer a different question:

  • What exists?
  • What is allowed?
  • How should it behave?
  • How is it executed?
  • How is it rebuilt?
  • How does it evolve?

Runtime consumption patterns

Section titled “Runtime consumption patterns”

There are three realistic ways to consume docs at runtime:

A) Direct retrieval

Section titled “A) Direct retrieval”

The runtime queries documentation or documentation-derived indexes directly.

Best for:

  • prompt context
  • policy lookup
  • workflow references

B) Compiled contracts

Section titled “B) Compiled contracts”

Docs are compiled into machine-usable policy or workflow artifacts.

Best for:

  • permission rules
  • action classes
  • workflow graphs
  • prompt registries

C) Hybrid model

Section titled “C) Hybrid model”

Use compiled contracts for deterministic behavior and retrieval for explanatory or contextual behavior.

This is the recommended long-term direction.

Guardrails

Section titled “Guardrails”
  1. Approved docs outrank observed runtime behavior.
  2. Sensitive rules must not be editable by learning systems without explicit review.
  3. Changes must preserve workspace and tenant isolation.
  4. Runtime consumption of docs must be versioned and observable.
  5. Documentation updates should be attributable to a proposal and approval path.

MVP-compatible path

Section titled “MVP-compatible path”

Today, the Documentation Hub should first act as:

  • the canonical human-reviewed contract system
  • the source for implementation and validation
  • the source for future machine-readable runtime artifacts

Only after those contracts are strong enough should runtime systems begin consuming them directly for behavior selection.