The facts editor
The editor holds short statements typed by a person: a title, the text, comma-separated keywords, a category, a priority and an on/off switch. They are matched by word overlap and keyword hits rather than by document structure, and an entry with a priority of ten or better is included whenever Knowledge is consulted at all. It is the right home for a rule of a few lines.
The six fields, and what each one changes#
| Field | Effect |
|---|---|
| Title | Shown in the answer's context block and in audit records. Matched against the question like the body is. |
| Content | The statement itself. Write it as a sentence somebody could quote, not as a note to self. |
| Keywords | Comma-separated. A keyword found literally in the question is worth four times an ordinary word match — this is the strongest lever available here. |
| Category | Decides whether the entry can prove something. verified_fact, product, company and owner_instruction carry fact authority; policy and the rest do not. |
| Priority | Lower is more important. Ten or better means always included; otherwise it is a tie-breaker between entries that already match. |
| Enabled | Off removes it from every answer without deleting it — the safe way to retire a statement you may need back. |
Writing an entry that retrieves#
- Use the customer's vocabulary in the body, not the internal one. An entry about *turnaround* will not be found by a question about *how long it takes* unless one of those phrasings is present or in the keywords.
- One statement per entry. An entry covering four topics matches everything weakly and proves nothing precisely.
- Put the answer in the first sentence. The opening is what a reader of the audit record sees, and the whole entry travels together anyway.
- Set the category deliberately. A commercial commitment written under a category with no fact authority will be retrieved and then not used, which looks exactly like the entry being ignored.
- Say the date inside the statement when it has one. There is no expiry mechanism, so 'until the end of March' has to be words a reader can act on.
Near-duplicate entries are collapsed before the block is built: when two entries of any real length share most of their content words, only the first survives into the context. That saves characters, but it decides for you which of the two the model sees, and it is the reason a fact edited in one entry can appear not to take effect while an older twin is still enabled.
When this beats a document#
| The material | Where it belongs |
|---|---|
| A rule of two or three sentences | The editor. No extraction step, no re-index, editable in seconds. |
| A signed policy, a specification, a price list | A Knowledge source, which keeps the original file, hashes it and cites it. |
| Something that must be traceable to a document a customer could be shown | A source. An entry here has no original file behind it. |
| Something the owner decided this morning | The editor, at first. Promote it to a source when it becomes a document somebody signs. |
| Something learned from a conversation | Neither — that is memory, and treating it as supplied truth is the mistake this section keeps warning about. |
Both stores feed the same reply. The context handed to the model carries the approved entries and the source passages as two labelled blocks side by side, so an answer can be grounded partly in a typed rule and partly in an uploaded document without either pretending to be the other.
What the editor deliberately does not do#
- No integrity hash
- There is no file to hash. What protects an entry is that a person typed it and the audit trail records who.
- No injection scan
- Text typed by a workspace member is not untrusted in the way a fetched page is. Pasting an email into an entry moves that text across the trust boundary — do not.
- No automatic conflict detection
- Two entries that contradict each other will both be retrieved. Contradiction checking runs when a *source* is added, and it reads existing entries as the thing to check against.
- No citation identifier
- An entry appears in context under its title rather than a
KB:citation, which is one way to tell in an audit record where a statement came from.
Questions#
How many entries is too many?
There is no hard ceiling, but only a handful reach any one answer, so the cost of a bloated bank is paid in crowding rather than in storage. If two entries would answer the same question, merge them. If an entry has not been used in months, the honest options are to delete it or to make it findable.
I edited an entry and the answer did not change.
Check for a near-duplicate that is still enabled — collapsing keeps whichever was retrieved first. Check the category, in case the statement is being retrieved but is not allowed to prove the claim. On a live call, also check that four entries were not already taken by higher-ranking ones.
Can Connect write an entry itself?
Statements Connect derives from work go to memory, which is a separate store with its own tiers, provenance and review. The editor is for supplied truth, and keeping it that way is what makes 'where did this claim come from' answerable months later.