{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreig56ct3tikox4yvtj3pne5zytsrgmlbdiatiglgx25t2nljfvz43y",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pgryn3ephfd2xgft23qokfzt/app.bsky.feed.post/3mooz6pw4wup2"
  },
  "path": "/t/engineering-emergence-from-prompting-to-a-new-topological-discipline/176921#post_11",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-20T03:46:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.huggingface.co",
  "textContent": "I think there is a complementary design rule here that may be useful:\n\nDo not let the LLM work everywhere. Let it work where there is an actual solution space.\n\nMany parts of an agentic or long-horizon system are not genuinely open-ended: schema validation, provenance tracking, status transitions, replay, budget checks, conflict bookkeeping, authority handling, and state updates can often be deterministic. If these parts are prompt-managed, the system adds variance exactly where it needs invariance.\n\nThe LLM is strongest where the space is underdetermined: generating hypotheses, reframing a problem, exploring alternative explanations, proposing search strategies, drafting language, or finding possible bridges between claims.\n\nSo the architecture can be separated into three layers:\n\n\\\\\\text{closed operation} \\\\\\rightarrow \\\\\\text{deterministic rule}\n\n\\\\\\text{open solution space} \\\\\\rightarrow \\\\\\text{LLM}\n\n\\\\\\text{persistent state change} \\\\\\rightarrow \\\\\\text{governed external update layer}\n\nThis is not mainly an efficiency trick. It is also a coherence requirement.\n\nStructured prompting can be very useful inside the open-solution-space layer. But persistent epistemic coherence should not depend on the model remembering, reconstructing, or reinterpreting its own commitments from prompt text. The model can help propose candidates; the external state/update layer should decide what becomes part of the system’s history.",
  "title": "Engineering Emergence: From Prompting to a New Topological Discipline?"
}