Skip to content
Log in
#large language models Open access

memoria.ia: Resolutive Memory — v1.0.0 Release Candidate 1

MARCELO ROLDAO MATOS
Aug 2026 · Open MIND

Abstract

Memoria.ia v1.0.0-rc1 — Release Candidate 1 Release date: 2026-08-30 Summary v1.0.0-rc1 is the first publication candidate for the Memoria.ia v1 line. It consolidates the validated Resolutive Memory research lineage with the deployable PC/server product layer and the native/mobile runtime path, while keeping post-v1 experimentation isolated from the release candidate. The release architecture remains: application / OFF.IA / agent ↓ Memoria.ia ↓ Resolutive-DB / BDR Memoria.ia owns memory semantics and state. Resolutive-DB owns durable persistence. Optional LLMs are consumers, not the authoritative memory store. Included capabilities persistent local-first memory state; organization and namespace isolation; provenance and authority lineage; conservative HIT / MISS / UNRESOLVED resolution; semantic, episodic, temporal and relation kernels; correction/supersession behavior with preserved lineage; PC/server FastAPI product boundary; Docker/Compose deployment; provider-neutral language-model adapters; metrics and context-selection instrumentation; integrity-checked backup/restore; native production runtime; Android arm64-v8a mobile ABI; durable native BDR persistence and restart recovery; indexed native resolution for large-memory workloads; reproducibility and release metadata gates; official Memoria.ia visual identity assets. Frozen candidate provenance The functional candidate was frozen at: dc73cbcdddfe20e0729e7e6bdea4697f7e8308cd That commit integrated PR #112, which preserved ranking, confidence, provenance policy, ABI and BDR contracts while adding the indexed native resolve lineage. The release branch adds publication metadata, version alignment, release documentation and current branding without importing post-v1 PR #116 runtime behavior. Validation evidence The exact functional lineage used for this release candidate passed the recorded required gates before release preparation: Android mobile ABI: PASS; native production image: PASS; Ubuntu/Windows candidate regression: PASS; BDR Linux/Ubuntu/Windows integration: PASS; native 100 / 1k / 10k benchmark matrix: PASS. Recorded 10k native resolve benchmark improvement versus the prior frozen baseline: p50: 693.233 ms -> 6.288 ms (~110x); p95: 710.630 ms -> 6.391 ms (~111x). These figures are environment- and workload-specific benchmark evidence, not universal latency guarantees. Publication metadata Release version: 1.0.0-rc1 Python package version: 1.0.0rc1 License: Resolutive Research and Non-Commercial License (RRNCL) v1.0 Author: Marcelo Roldão Matos ORCID: 0009-0003-6075-4680 RSMS compatibility: 1.0-rc.1 A new archival DOI should be assigned to this publication. The v0.95 DOI must not be reused as the release DOI for v1.0.0-rc1. Why this is RC1 rather than final v1.0 The repository currently declares compatibility with RSMS 1.0-rc.1, and the published Resolutive Science baseline remains on that release-candidate specification. Therefore Memoria.ia is published as v1.0.0-rc1 rather than claiming final v1.0 compatibility prematurely. Final v1.0 promotion requires: successful release-candidate metadata and regression gates; reproducibility from the public release state; compatibility re-audit against stable RSMS; no release-blocking regression found during RC use; final archival metadata and DOI synchronization. Explicitly excluded from RC1 The following post-v1 work is not part of this release candidate: external/public knowledge learning from OFF.IA Curiosity (issue #114 / PR #116); autonomous curiosity policy; new MA2A federation transport; multimodal post-v1 expansion; new semantic-consolidation phases from the post-v1 roadmap. Those features continue independently after this publication. Security boundary This release candidate is not represented as independently production-security certified. Authentication, isolation, integrity and negative-path controls exist and are tested, but no independent production security audit is claimed. Claims boundary This release does not claim: artificial general intelligence; biological equivalence; replacement of general-purpose LLMs; universal O(1) semantic resolution; production-ready MA2A federation; security certification. Claims are limited to the implementation, tests, benchmarks and reproducible evidence recorded in the repository.

DOI
View source

Similar papers

#large language models Open access Aug 2026

A Pattern Language for Production LLM Platforms: Governed Routing, Agent Orchestration, and AI-Native Delivery

A production platform built on large language models makes two kinds of decision, and most of its trouble comes from writing both into one clause. An optimization decision improves an objective: lower latency, lower cost, higher quality, fewer tests run. A boundary decision fixes a constraint that may not be relaxed for any gain: a residency rule, a least-privilege scope, a human-review threshold. When the two share a clause, improving one silently erodes the other, which is why efficiency and accountability are so often reported as a trade. This specification is built on one invariant: a boundary is a clause the optimizer may not cross, and everything else is optimization. The contribution is a cross-layer architectural method for separating non-negotiable constraints from adaptive optimization and binding both to reconstructable evidence, applied identically across model routing, agent orchestration and AI-native delivery. The seventeen patterns are instances of that method rather than the contribution itself. Each pattern is specified in the classical pattern form and carries three architectural declarations: the boundary it fixes, the optimizer it frees, and the evidence proving the boundary held. Every boundary is assigned to one of five classes covering data, authority, decision, resource and process constraints. Section 3 states the derivation method by which candidates were admitted or rejected, and publishes the rejections alongside the admissions so that the criterion can be examined rather than trusted. Three mechanisms make the language operate as a language rather than a list. A pattern relationship graph names which pattern supplies the artifact, evidence or authority another depends on, including the single cycle by which a workflow improves from its own structural record and the economic chain running the full height of the stack. A normative event identity, with rules for causal parentage, retries, provider boundaries and retention, turns the requirement that evidence be joinable into something an implementation can satisfy or fail. And per-pattern applicability conditions replace categorical requirements, so that a pattern governing a mechanism an institution does not operate is out of scope rather than a gap. Conformance is self-declared and published as a profile carrying the environment, the applicable set, per-pattern status, an evidence date and documented gaps. It is not a certification scheme, and no conformity assessment body operates against it. The contribution is architectural rather than empirical. Every pattern carries an evidence level, and no pattern reaches the highest level, because no implementation unconnected to the author has been evaluated. Nothing has been measured. The specification separates what would falsify the invariant from what would falsify an individual pattern and from what would falsify the composition and adoption sequence, poses six research questions, and records the absence of a real implementation profile as a known deficiency of version 1.0. An appendix reconciles the pattern identifiers with the names used across the author's papers and companion book series, including the acronyms PEVG and PARA, so that the two bodies of work can be cited as one. Version 1.1 names two constructs the specification already contained. The central proposition is named the Boundary Invariant, and the three architectural declarations required of every pattern are together named the BOE Declaration. Neither carries a trademark, both are offered for use with attribution under this document's licence, and neither changes any requirement: the proposition, its wording and its priority date are those of version 1.0. Section 11 gains the two-family naming convention and a precedence rule fixing which document governs where this specification and the Defensible AI Framework Registry describe the same relationship.

Nabeel Khan · 8 citations

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Aug 31, 2026

GigaPath-Flash and GigaTIME-Flash: Toward population-scale discovery with efficient pathology foundation models

What if pathology foundation models could do more with less? GigaPath-Flash and GigaTIME-Flash cut computational demands while maintaining strong performance, opening the door to larger studies and broader exploration. The post GigaPath-Flash and GigaTIME-Flash: Toward population-scale discovery with efficient pathology foundation models appeared first on Microsoft Research.