my question in 1 sentence : Should an ICM agent be allowed to propose changes to relationships (fields pointing one record at another, like ownership) or only to scalar values (self-contained data such as amounts, dates, statuses and free text) — and is that distinction even a legitimate permission boundary, given that Jake's model draws the line on role, route and sensitivity, never on field type? ------------------------- The context I run an ICM where the catalog is generated from the system that holds the actual records, and where the agent can propose changes back through a human gate. Reads flow one way, proposals flow the other, and nothing is written without me approving it. When I built the proposal path, I made a decision I now think was wrong. I allowed the agent to propose changes to values — amounts, statuses, dates, free text — but I blocked it from proposing changes to relationships: the fields that point one record at another. My reasoning at the time was that a pointer is structural, and structure should be changed deliberately, through the interface, not through text. Re-reading the ICM Architect material, I no longer think that distinction holds. Jake's permission model is built on role ("agents inherit the access of the role they act for, never more"), on route ("the permission lives in the routing, at the data layer or along the route"), and on sensitivity ("shelve by sensitivity"). Never on the technical type of a field. And relationships are not second-class in his model. Invariant 8: "Links make it a graph… the edges are what let an AI move through your work the way you do." His own node template carries owner: <accountable person or role> right next to consumes: and produces: wikilinks — all of it ordinary frontmatter. So I may have invented a governance rule that is really just an implementation constraint wearing a costume. --- The concrete example The field is ownership — who is accountable for a record. Today: Me : "Who is accountable for this one?"

Say you've got a plan review, a brand doc, a spec - whatever - and two or three other files were built off it. Now the source updates. Nothing tells the downstrem files they're working off old data. No error, no flag, just quietly wrong output until someone catches it by accident. How is everyone actually handling this in their systems: - pin every dependency to a version and force manual re-approval when the source changes? - some kind of "last verified against version X" field sitting in front matter? - or honestly just not solving it and eating the occasional bad output? Genuinely curious what's held up for builders running this past a handful of files...

I am running a business B2B but curious about adding more brains for each skill. Most of you already good at folder structures and using it, what if you had to build a new business what folder structure you will made? Such as Branding.md, Email Writing, Objections handling etc etc. Would love to see your examples!

Do you guys have a build recommendation for cloud or online access to your cli? I'm currently coding on my laptop via a WARP CLI. I'm attempting to build a Agentic Agency Management System and I'll soon need to go multiplayer so departments can access their vectors of the OS. I don't want to be locked into my laptop and I want to control what my team has access to. I've been weighing a VPS vs my own self hosted server. Do you guys have any advice for an always on remote system stack you recommend?

Can anybody help me? So I followed a lot of the steps and I got all the way to visual studio code and I’ve started creating agents. However, I’m not sure that I’m doing it correctly because I am hitting my limits with visual studio code maxing out at 99%. However, by following your instructions and chatting with Claude through my terminal. I don’t blow through my Claude limits. Claude within my terminal builds, markdown files and folders underneath my company that I’m building, but I seem to be confused on how they connect and I need guidance if anybody wants to chime in.