AI agent orchestration platforms coordinate role-based and task-based AI agents, along with the tools, data, and people they depend on, into multistep workflows. These platforms are highly important for organizations scaling from handfuls to thousands of AI agents running in production.
Two open standards do the connective work: MCP (Model Context Protocol) gives agents governed access to tools and data, while A2A (Agent2Agent) lets agents discover and delegate to one another, including agents built on other platforms. The orchestration layer sits on top, adding the routing, shared state, guardrails, governance, security, and observability needed to run workflows that range from fully autonomous to human-in-the-loop.
AI orchestration platforms may be the hottest AI technology of the year. In researching this article, I identified more than 60 commercial and open source platforms that businesses can use as a control plane to manage work between AI agents, people, and automations.
Like data fabrics and automation platforms, I suspect enterprises will utilize more than one AI agent orchestration platform. Platforms are being released by hyperscalers and solution providers in enterprise SaaS, process automation, customer experience, data management, AIops, and IT infrastructure. Development-centric platforms include open source, commercial, and no-code integration solution providers.
Here are five considerations when reviewing AI agent orchestration platforms.
AI agent orchestration platforms are non-deterministic and leverage AI capabilities to coordinate responses and actions across AI agents. One area to evaluate is how administrators implement controls and guardrails over which AI agents can coordinate with others and under what circumstances. Additionally, platforms should also have controls on when and where people should be involved before taking action.
“CIOs should focus on how the AI orchestration platform clearly applies controls over autonomous decision-making,” says Heather Richards, global vice president of go-to-market strategy at Verint. “Ideally, the platform makes it easy to define who or what can take actions, how decisions are approved, and where accountability sits when something goes wrong. If orchestration doesn’t have built-in governance, visibility, and human override, it will scale risk faster than it scales value.”
Observable AI agents are primary capabilities for tracing how they interact and where decisions are made. But even more important is to review how platforms govern access to the context layer, which can include retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for language models, knowledge graphs, and semantic layers.
“When evaluating an AI orchestration platform, organizations should consider whether governance and observability were built into the architecture from day one,” says Caitlin Schuman, director of AI strategy and customer innovation at Presidio. “A strong platform should make it clear what context is being used and should have a control layer that routes work across systems, agents, and humans.”
Deploying trustworthy AI agents is important for gaining employee adoption. Charles Crouchman, chief product officer at Redwood Software, suggests evaluating how an AI agent orchestration platform establishes trustworthy operations with enterprise resources. He recommends asking these five questions:
“Validating these answers moves you from disconnected AI reasoning to real execution, empowering you to take the next step towards an autonomous enterprise,” says Crouchman.
AI agent orchestration platforms centralize a growing number of operational workflows, so it’s important to evaluate whether their security, performance, reliability, and resiliency meet compliance and non-functional requirements.
“Deploying agents is the easy part; the hard part is ensuring they operate safely, consistently, and in coordination with the people and systems around them,” says Daniel Meyer, CTO at Camunda. “Orchestration platforms should enforce controls between an agent’s decision and its action, handle long-running processes without losing state, and maintain a full audit trail natively.”
Organizations should also consider how platforms support agentic ops practices for identity management, monitoring, AI agent accuracy, and incident management.
“Don’t just seek solutions that coordinate workflow or handle the life cycle of an agent; also seek solutions that get the answers agents need faster, with more accuracy, all while meeting essential security and compliance requirements,” says James Urquhart, field CTO and technology evangelist at Kamiwaza. “A platform that securely coordinates context gathering and result formulation across widely disparate infrastructures and data sources is essential, not only to the performance of AI in the enterprise, but also to its agility.”
Testing AI agents requires validating changes before deployment, just as with continuous testing for applications and APIs. But it also requires evaluating prompts, responses, and actions in production and ensuring that agents aren’t drifting from expected parameters or going rogue. One area in which AI agent orchestration platforms differ is how they support testing AI agents, monitoring them in production, and providing a centralized source of feedback to support accuracy improvements.
“When selecting an AI orchestration platform, don’t overlook where the software it produces actually gets tested and validated,” says Jean-Philippe LeBlanc, senior vice president of engineering at CircleCI. “AI can accelerate every stage of development, but without rigorous, automated validation integrated into the delivery pipeline, you’re compounding risk at the same rate you’re compounding velocity.”
Armando Franco, senior director of cloud and platform modernization at TEKsystems Global Services, says, “The criterion that actually matters is whether continuous outcome evaluation is a first-class capability of the platform itself, because without it, iteration speed collapses and the program stalls.”
MCP and A2A are two ways AI agent orchestration platforms support open standards and enable connecting to an ecosystem of agents. Many platforms also allow developers to select and replace the underlying AI models and to choose from a range of AI code-generation tools. These flexibilities ensure teams can optimize around performance, accuracy, compliance, costs, and other future considerations.
“When evaluating an AI orchestration platform, we look first at composability and interoperability,” says Rajesh Arora, chief data and analytics officer at Principal. “The real test is not how many features it offers today, but whether it can connect models, data sources, agentic solutions, and workflows in a way that adapts to our AI strategy, tech stack, and changing business needs.”
Other interoperability criteria to review include the platform’s AI agent cataloging capabilities, how permissions are configured dynamically, and whether prebuilt connectors are available for the required integrations.
Leaders recognize that AI is currently reshaping business more than driving transformation. To be successful, organizations require AI governance that keeps up with strategy and doesn’t lag too far behind. The same is true for AI agent orchestration platforms, so it’s important to review their release notes and road maps to see whether providers strike a reasonable balance between innovation and governance.
“The right orchestration platform provides a unified policy layer that follows work across agents, workflows, and AI tools, enabling your teams to build freely while IT and security maintain full visibility at the action and output levels,” says Brandon Sammut, chief people and AI transformation officer at Zapier. “If your governance can’t keep pace with how fast your people are building, you’ll either slow them down or lose sight of what they’re building.”
Since AI agent orchestration platforms are a new category, technology leaders should partner with their financial, legal, and compliance colleagues to assess vendor viability risks. In addition, reviewing customer adoption and support capabilities is important as top solution providers will continue to evolve their platforms.
“A mature provider offers both a stable platform and the customer support you’ll need, and with a large customer base, they’ve already hit countless edge cases that can smooth your own implementation,” says Hannes Hapke, director of the 575 Lab at Dataiku. “Assess maturity by looking at funding and financial backing, the clarity and consistency of their public road map, and the size and activity of their community. An engaged user base, active forums, and a healthy ecosystem of integrations all signal a provider that will still be standing when you scale.”
Many organizations are still early in adopting AI agents and transitioning proofs of concept into production. But for those deploying a growing number of AI agents across many platforms, selecting an AI agent orchestration platform enables scaling workflows, operations, and governance.
Every cloud architect, every financial services executive, and frankly every enterprise CTO should be paying attention to what is going on in the United Kingdom right now. Britain has formally designated Microsoft, Google, Amazon Web Services, and Oracle as “critical third parties” to the financial sector, meaning they are now subject to direct oversight by UK financial regulators rather than being treated as distant infrastructure suppliers outside the regulatory perimeter.
The designations took effect on July 13, 2026, and the oversight will be carried out by the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, and the Financial Conduct Authority. The point is straightforward. If these platforms underpin critical banking and financial operations, then their resilience is no longer just a procurement issue. It is now a matter of financial stability.
This is a bigger deal than many people understand. For years, enterprises have treated cloud platforms as outsourced technology providers. Regulators are now making a different argument. They are saying that when enough banks, insurers, payment firms, and market infrastructures depend on the same small group of cloud providers, those providers become systemic infrastructure whether they like the label or not. Reuters reported that the UK’s framework will bring requirements such as resilience testing, self-assessments, and incident reporting directly to these providers. In other words, this is not just more policy language. It is operational oversight aimed at the platforms themselves.
The first thing to understand is that this move is not anti-cloud. It is the opposite. It is an acknowledgment that cloud has become too important to remain lightly touched when it comes to systemic risk. Regulators are not trying to unwind cloud adoption in financial services. They are accepting the reality that core financial operations now depend on a concentrated set of external platforms. When that happens, the conversation changes from vendor management to infrastructure resilience.
The market has spent years talking about cloud concentration risk as if it were some vague future concern. It is no longer abstract. The UK is acting because concentration at this level means that a disruption at one major provider can ripple across multiple institutions simultaneously. That is the core issue. It is not whether Microsoft, Google, Amazon, or Oracle are competent operators. In many cases, they are exceptionally good at what they do. The problem is that too much critical activity depends on too few shared platforms.
This is a concept many business and technology leaders still struggle to internalize. A single bank can do a fine job managing its own vendor exposure and still be part of a broader systemic vulnerability if every other bank is relying on the same provider, the same region, the same identity layer, or the same operational dependencies. Regulators are stepping in because the risk is collective, not just institutional. That is why this matters well beyond the UK. It provides a framework for thinking about cloud not as outsourced capacity, but as part of the plumbing of the financial system itself.
Traditionally, regulators focused on the bank, insurer, or market institution and expected that entity to manage the risks created by outside suppliers. That approach still exists, and financial institutions remain accountable for their own resilience. However, the UK now says that, in some cases, this indirect model is not enough. If a third party becomes critical enough, regulators want direct line of sight into that provider’s resilience posture as well. This is probably the most important architectural and policy signal in the entire move.
That changes the relationship between the financial sector and the cloud providers in a meaningful way. Direct oversight means cloud providers are increasingly being treated less like optional technology partners and more like essential utilities that support national economic confidence. Once that happens, architecture decisions start to carry a different weight. Decisions about control planes, failover models, identity dependencies, regional design, observability, and incident response are no longer just internal engineering choices. They become part of a broader resilience conversation that may now include regulators.
A lot of enterprises have been behind the curve. They built architectures under the assumption that the cloud was simply a faster and cheaper hosting model. It is not. At scale, cloud is shared critical infrastructure. The UK has now made that point explicit.
It’s tempting to read this and assume the problem has now been solved. It has not. Direct oversight of hyperscalers does not remove the responsibility of banks or other enterprises to architect well. In fact, it should push them to architect better. A regulated provider can still be a concentration point. A resilient platform can still be used in a fragile way. And a well-run cloud service can still become part of a badly designed dependency chain.
If you are in a regulated or highly sensitive industry, you should take this as a warning that resilience can no longer be treated as a side topic. You need to know exactly which services are business-critical, which control planes are shared, which identity systems create cross-platform dependencies, and how your recovery assumptions actually work in the real world. Most organizations are much weaker here than they believe.
The UK’s move should also force a hard conversation about operational transparency. If regulators are requiring incident reporting and resilience evidence from major providers, enterprises should be demanding clearer dependency mapping and better architectural visibility inside their own environments. You cannot build true resilience on top of assumptions and vendor slide decks.
The deeper message is that cloud is crossing a line from enterprise technology choice into national and sector-level infrastructure policy. Once a few governments and central regulators start treating cloud this way, the rest of the world tends to follow in some form. We have already seen comparable concern in Europe, and now the UK has made its own move with direct designations and direct oversight.
Architects, CIOs, and boards need to mature their thinking quickly. The conversation is no longer limited to feature depth, discounts, migration speed, or which provider has the best AI story this quarter. The conversation is now about resilience, concentration, transparency, control, and systemic dependency. Those are bigger issues, and they are not going away.
The UK is telling the market something very clearly. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Oracle are not just selling cloud services into the financial sector. They are becoming part of the infrastructure on which that sector depends. Once you understand that, everything changes, including how we architect for the future.
For years, the public cloud was the default for new workloads because its convenience, elasticity, and breadth of services made sense. However, as AI’s strategic importance grows, its economics and infrastructure are changing. Tesla is one of the clearest examples of a company deciding that AI is too important, too expensive, and too central to its business to leave largely in the hands of a third-party cloud provider.
At the center of Tesla’s strategy is a simple idea. If AI is key to how you build your products, run your business, and define your future, the infrastructure that powers AI becomes a strategic asset. It is no longer just plumbing but part of the product itself. Tesla’s models, databases, applications, and workflows increasingly rely on infrastructure that is built, hosted, and managed by Tesla. That means the company has direct control over the hardware, the software stack, data movement, performance tuning, and security posture. For a company that depends on AI to support autonomy, robotics, manufacturing intelligence, and future product direction, that control matters.
This is the real heart of the matter. Tesla is not treating AI as a side project or a feature layer added on top of an existing business. AI is central to Tesla now and into the future. It is a force multiplier, but more than that, it is an essential aspect of product development, operational efficiency, automation, and competitive differentiation. Once a company reaches that level of dependence on AI, the conversation around infrastructure changes very quickly.
Public cloud is attractive because it provides a complete AI ecosystem on demand. You can provision compute, storage, training environments, managed services, orchestration tools, and deployment pipelines without building much yourself. That is why I often call public cloud “the easy button” for AI. It is fast, convenient, and feature-rich. But convenience comes with a premium, and for many companies moving deeply into AI, that premium is becoming very hard to justify.
One of the biggest forces driving this shift is price. Many enterprises moving into AI are shocked by what public cloud providers charge for AI infrastructure. Training clusters, inference engines, storage, networking, observability, and support services all add up quickly. What begins as a convenient path to experimentation can become an extremely expensive operating model when AI moves into production at scale.
In my experience during the past 15 years, public cloud is often at least twice as expensive as comparable private infrastructure for sustained workloads. That is not true in every case, and it depends heavily on utilization patterns, architecture, and operational maturity. However, for large, predictable, always-on AI workloads, public cloud economics often become difficult to defend. The markup associated with convenience, elasticity, and managed ecosystems is substantial.
In response, companies are increasingly exploring alternatives. Some are moving toward neoclouds that specialize in AI infrastructure. Others are evaluating sovereign cloud options for control, locality, or compliance reasons. Many are revisiting private cloud infrastructure for the most strategic and cost-intensive workloads. Tesla is becoming the poster child for how successful that approach can be when a company has the scale, the sophistication, and the long-term commitment to execute it well.
Cost is only one part of the equation. Control is the other major driver. When Tesla runs its AI infrastructure on equipment it owns and operates, it gains much tighter control over performance, data handling, workload placement, governance models, and operational priorities. That matters a great deal when the workloads involved are mission-critical and directly connected to the future of the company.
A privately controlled AI environment can provide better security because the organization has direct oversight of the infrastructure stack. It can provide better governance because data, models, and workflows remain inside systems the enterprise fully controls. It can also improve reliability and performance tuning because engineering teams can optimize specifically for their own AI pipelines rather than adapting to the generalized patterns of a shared cloud environment.
Of course, many people are quick to point out that running your own private infrastructure comes with significant labor and cost. They are not wrong. Building and operating private AI infrastructure requires capital, engineering skill, facilities, procurement discipline, operational excellence, and long-term commitment. This is not a shortcut, nor is it easier than public cloud. In many ways, it is harder.
However, the point is that for sophisticated companies with large-scale, steady-state AI needs, it can be worth it. Better control, better governance, better security, and ultimately lower cost can justify the additional operational burden.
What makes Tesla so important in this discussion is that the company chose this route because AI is inseparable from its business strategy. Many other enterprises are heading in this same direction. As AI becomes less experimental and more operational, the infrastructure conversation shifts from convenience to economics, control, and differentiation.
Not every company should follow Tesla’s path. Many enterprises are not ready to build, host, and manage their own AI environments. Many lack the scale to justify it. Many still benefit tremendously from the agility of public cloud. But for organizations where AI is becoming central to products, services, and competitive advantage, Tesla’s strategy is increasingly relevant.
There are three things every enterprise should think about when considering ownership of its own AI infrastructure:
Tesla’s strategy is not for everyone, but it is a persuasive example of what happens when a company decides that AI is too important to rent forever. Public cloud remains the easy button, and for many organizations, that will be enough. But for companies that see AI as fundamental to how they will compete, private infrastructure may turn out to be the smarter choice.
A new analysis suggests that psychological research is rapidly moving from journals into the machinery of U.S. governance, with findings increasingly cited in policy documents addressing education, health, and social justice. The trend highlights how behavioral science is becoming a preferred source for guidance that aims to be evidence-based, testable, and actionable across institutions.
Researchers reviewed how a broad set of psychological studies is referenced in government policy materials and found that citations are not uniformly distributed. Instead, the most frequent appearances cluster around topics where human behavior, motivation, and learning processes can be translated into measurable outcomes, such as classroom achievement, public health adherence, and interventions aimed at reducing inequities.
The study emphasizes that psychology’s influence often comes through research that offers clear mechanisms—how thoughts, beliefs, and social contexts shape behavior over time. In policy language, these mechanisms become frameworks for designing programs, evaluating impact, and justifying resource allocation, even when the original work is not a “policy trial” per se.
A key technical takeaway is the role of systematic constructs from psychology—such as expectancy, self-efficacy, stigma dynamics, and behavioral choice architectures—being mapped onto policy levers. By linking experimental or observational findings to specific policy implementations, document authors can argue that interventions should work for defined populations under defined conditions.
The authors also note that citation patterns can reflect more than scientific quality. They may signal changing editorial norms within policy agencies, increased availability of review literature, and the growing use of structured evidence standards that encourage referencing peer-reviewed work.
Beyond what is cited, the analysis points to how psychological research can travel: through policy briefs, synthesis reports, and cross-disciplinary writing that converts statistical results into guidance. This translation step matters, because policy documents prioritize clarity and generalizability, while academic papers emphasize boundaries and uncertainty.
In a viral science-news moment for researchers, the findings suggest psychology is not merely being used—it is being “operationalized.” That means researchers’ results are increasingly treated as building blocks for frameworks that guide interventions, performance metrics, and stakeholder communication.
Importantly, the researchers call attention to the potential risks of citation without careful fit. If a policy references a study whose populations, settings, or effect sizes differ from the target context, implementation may underperform or misestimate benefits. The work therefore implicitly argues for tighter alignment between evidence and local decision-making.
Overall, the analysis positions psychological science as an expanding influence in U.S. policy, especially where behavior is central and where policymakers want interventions grounded in empirically tested models. As the citation footprint grows, so does the need for rigorous evidence translation and scrutiny.
Subject of Research: Psychological research citations in U.S. policy documents, especially for education, health, and social justice.
Article Title: Psychological research is increasingly cited in U.S. policy documents especially for education, health and social justice issues.
Article References: Yu, CW., Hu, HY., Furnas, A.C. et al. (2026). Commun Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00516-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1038/s44271-026-00516-6
Keywords: Psychological research, U.S. policy, education policy, health policy, social justice, citations, evidence-based interventions
João Serra aborda as três camadas de gestão de endpoints, mas avisa que nenhuma ferramenta, por si só, cria governance.
The post Da visibilidade à governance: o papel inovador do Endpoint Central appeared first on Tek Notícias.
China has created an international organization to set standards and introduce regulation for AI, inviting 28 other countries to join — but the US, a leading AI powerhouse is not part it.
The World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) was established by 29 countries, including China, Russia and Brazil, at a ceremony in Shanghai, China, on July 16. Notably absent are the US, the European Union and its member states, the UK, Japan and South Korea.
Chinese AI companies have made a concerted effort to provide an alternative to US dominance. While the US is clearly ahead, Chinese enterprises are looking to narrow the gap in various areas: the open-weight model market, AI cyber protection and open source AI.
WAICO has been some years in development and has been designed to set some universal guidelines in AI. Researchers say WAICO differs in three ways from other initiatives to create global AI organizations: membership open to any sovereign state, there is no regime-type test for entry, and its agenda is built around development and the global capability divide.
The signing ceremony to create WAICO comes just days after Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, called on the US to take a lead in global AI regulation. “The US is well-positioned to take the first step in developing such a framework. It could establish a new Standards Body modelled on a federally overseen public-private partnership or self-regulatory organization, much like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), with a board that includes independent leading technical experts and open-source representatives,” Hassabis wrote.
Enterprises implementing agentic AI face a challenge: Which tools should they allow their agents to use, where can they be found, and how can they be used safely? A new protocol, Agentic Resource Discovery, or ARD, aims to let agents answer those questions for themselves. Behind it are Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Nvidia, Salesforce and others.
ARD aims to standardize the way that tools and services are shared across systems within a corporate domain. For example, when investigating a production problem, an agent may want to query engineering documentation and open support tickets, deployment history and observability systems, all of which could be managed by different registries and across different silos. There is no common layer that pulls them together. ARD has been designed to be that layer.
It operates across two levels. Catalogs and Registries. In the first, an organization publishes a catalog setting out its available capabilities. The Registries layer act as a form of search engine, crawling those published catalogs.
The ARD specification is available now. Organizations are invited to publish their own catalogs using the quickstart guide. After this, they are able to join the community and participate in the evolution of ARD.
This article first appeared on InfoWorld.
Enterprises implementing agentic AI face a challenge: Which tools should they allow their agents to use, where can they be found, and how can they be used safely? A new protocol, Agentic Resource Discovery, or ARD, aims to let agents answer those questions for themselves. Behind it are Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Nvidia, Salesforce and others.
ARD aims to standardize the way that tools and services are shared across systems within a corporate domain. For example, when investigating a production problem, an agent may want to query engineering documentation and open support tickets, deployment history and observability systems, all of which could be managed by different registries and across different silos. There is no common layer that pulls them together. ARD has been designed to be that layer.
It operates across two levels. Catalogs and Registries. In the first, an organization publishes a catalog setting out its available capabilities. The Registries layer act as a form of search engine, crawling those published catalogs.
The ARD specification is available now. Organizations are invited to publish their own catalogs using the quickstart guide. After this, they are able to join the community and participate in the evolution of ARD.
Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and others want to help enterprises demonstrate that their AI applications are behaving themselves through the creation of a new foundation.
The Appia Foundation will, it explained rather impenetrably, “establish modular specifications that provide a connecting layer to bridge foundational global standards with practical, trusted assessments across the global AI value chain.”
Those specifications will help AI users ascertain whether the systems they are using meet all the obligations that apply to them in the form of standards and regulations, it said. It’s a challenging task with so much regional variation in requirements, and where the EU, for example, is more tightly controlled than the US.
The Foundation has established a set of criteria to demonstrate conformity with what is expected. There are two layers: the Requirements and Guidance layers will help users determine what is actually required, while the Assessment Enablement layer will look at how those requirements are evaluated.
Appia stressed that what it is offering are not standards — which are set by recognized international bodies such as ISO/IEC — but a means of assessing what those standards mean and how they can be used by organizations. However, the Foundation said that some of the criteria that it is introducing may become standards themselves after a period of time.
The Appia Foundation is hosted by the Linux Foundation’s Joint Development Foundation, and its other members include Arm, Ericsson, Mastercard, Mitsubishi Electric, Omron, Schneider Electric, and Siemens. It is also looking to bring academics and government into the fold, so that it can establish an advisory board.
This article first appeared on CIO.
Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and others want to help enterprises demonstrate that their AI applications are behaving themselves through the creation of a new foundation.
The Appia Foundation will, it explained rather impenetrably, “establish modular specifications that provide a connecting layer to bridge foundational global standards with practical, trusted assessments across the global AI value chain.”
Those specifications will help AI users ascertain whether the systems they are using meet all the obligations that apply to them in the form of standards and regulations, it said. It’s a challenging task with so much regional variation in requirements, and where the EU, for example, is more tightly controlled than the US.
The Foundation has established a set of criteria to demonstrate conformity with what is expected. There are two layers: the Requirements and Guidance layers will help users determine what is actually required, while the Assessment Enablement layer will look at how those requirements are evaluated.
Appia stressed that what it is offering are not standards — which are set by recognized international bodies such as ISO/IEC — but a means of assessing what those standards mean and how they can be used by organizations. However, the Foundation said that some of the criteria that it is introducing may become standards themselves after a period of time.
The Appia Foundation is hosted by the Linux Foundation’s Joint Development Foundation, and its other members include Arm, Ericsson, Mastercard, Mitsubishi Electric, Omron, Schneider Electric, and Siemens. It is also looking to bring academics and government into the fold, so that it can establish an advisory board.
This article first appeared on CIO.
First came vector databases, then RAG. Now, the next frontier in enterprise AI is taking shape: context layers that give autonomous agents a shared understanding of the business, a vision Databricks is advancing with Genie Ontology.
Currently in preview, Genie Ontology automatically extracts business context from enterprise data, dashboards, queries, pipelines, documents, and applications and organizes it into a living graph that AI agents can use to understand how an organization operates.
Showcased at the company’s Data + AI Summit, Genie Ontology uses a ranking system inspired by Google’s PageRank to identify the most authoritative business definitions within an organization.
Rather than treating all sources equally, it weighs factors including who created the information, how widely it is used, its links to certified datasets and assets, and how recently it was updated before determining which answer an AI agent should rely on, Databricks CEO Ali Ghodsi said during his keynote late on Tuesday while explaining the new offering.
Organizations can also upload their own business definitions or ontologies to Genie Ontology via Databricks’ existing Unity Catalog Semantics platform, Ghodsi added.
For CIOs, a unified context layer, such as Genie Ontology, will materially improve consistency, trust, and governance for enterprise AI deployments, according to analysts.
“One definition feeding every agent means you stop getting three different answers to the same question,” said Michael Leone, principal analyst at Moor Insights and Strategy.
“Older approaches, such as RAG and vector search, just pull back whatever looks similar to your question, and they don’t actually understand your business. An ontology gives the agent the meaning a catalog can’t, what your terms mean, and which source to trust,” Leone added.
That improvement in consistency, according to Ashish Chaturvedi, leader of executive research at HFS Research, could also improve trust, which remains one of the most critical barriers to AI adoption.
“The single biggest barrier to enterprise AI adoption is that decision-makers don’t trust AI outputs enough to act on them without checking. An ontology that grounds answers in governed business definitions, with lineage back to source, directly attacks that trust deficit,” Chaturvedi said.
Alternatively, Leone was more cautious about the trust argument: “It’s a promising idea, but it still has to prove itself before I’d lean on it for anything that matters.”
Echoing Leone, HyperFRAME Research’s practice leader of AI stack Stephanie Walter pointed out that ontologies have a missing link, and that is verification: “Ontologies can improve context, but they do not guarantee the answer is correct. An agent can still pull incomplete data, apply the wrong logic, skip rows, misunderstand a workflow, or take the wrong action.”
That verification gap becomes even more critical, according to Leone, because most enterprises don’t have the data and governance readiness required to implement an ontology layer for AI deployments: “If your data and governance aren’t already in order, this just speeds up your existing mess.”
Seconding Leone, Walter pointed out that an ontology cannot fix messy definitions, poor lineage, weak ownership, or fragmented permissions on its own.
Additionally, the analyst pointed out that the hard part for CIOs is not creating an ontology once but keeping it accurate as the business changes: “Enterprises will need clear data ownership, metric ownership, domain expertise, governance processes, and a way to resolve conflicting definitions.”
“Otherwise, the ontology becomes another stale metadata project with a more sophisticated name,” Walter added.
Beyond data and governance readiness, CIOs also face a growing risk of confusion in the wake of several technology vendors pursuing approaches, similar to Genie Ontology, to ground enterprise AI in a business context, according to analysts.
Over the past year, Snowflake, Microsoft, and others have introduced some form of ontology, semantic, and context-layer offerings, but the problem is in how these offerings are named, Leone said.
“Everyone slapped a different name on basically the same idea. It slows people down as it creates confusion,” Leone noted.
That confusion could also backfire on Databricks and other vendors, according to Bhupendra Chopra, cofounder and CRO of IT consulting firm Kanerika: “While the marketing has converged around context-building offerings, most enterprises will choose the platform where their data already resides.”
HFS Research’s Chaturvedi doubled down on that view, saying CIOs should resist evaluating ontology offerings in isolation and asked them to stick to the mantra of context layer follows data gravity: “If your data lives in Databricks, Genie Ontology is your path. If it’s in Snowflake, Horizon Context is. If you’re a Microsoft shop, the IQ family is.”
Additionally, Chaturvedi urged CIOs to look beyond functionality and assess how open and portable these offerings are, particularly in multi-platform environments where business definitions may need to move across data lakehouses, analytics tools, and AI platforms.
This is where Chaturvedi sees Snowflake differentiating itself from rivals, with its focus on open semantic interoperability aimed at reducing the risk of semantic lock-in as enterprises evolve their data and analytics stacks.
Snowflake’s efforts to differentiate itself, though, analysts pointed out, at least for CIOs, draw attention to a larger race among vendors, including Databricks, to become the control plane for enterprise AI.
While Snowflake is attempting to position itself as an AI control layer through a combination of Snowflake Intelligence, Horizon Catalog, and its push for open semantic interoperability, Microsoft is embedding business context and governance across its Copilot, Fabric, and broader AI stack through offerings such as Work IQ, Fabric IQ, and Foundry IQ, Chaturvedi said.
Databricks’ Genie Ontology, too, is part of a similar strategy, Chaturvedi pointed out, urging CIOs to view the offering in the context of the company’s wider effort to position its lakehouse platform as the foundation on which enterprise AI agents are built, governed, and eventually deployed.
“It’s absolutely a control-plane play. When you connect the dots across everything Databricks has announced at this summit, including LTAP, OpenSharing, and Genie Ontology, you see a single place where enterprise data, governance, business semantics, and agent execution all converge,” Chaturvedi added.
Further, the analyst noted that the control-plane strategy reflects Ghodsi’s broader vision that data platforms could evolve into what the CEO describes as an “agentic system of record” — an authoritative source that AI agents read from, reason over, and act through.
The concept mirrors earlier platform shifts, Chaturvedi said, where ERP systems became the system of record for business transactions and data warehouses became the system of record for analytics.
The next battle, the analyst said, is over which platform becomes the system of record for enterprise AI agents.
Moor Insights and Strategy’s Leone agreed that data platforms are well-positioned to compete for that role because they already own the data, governance controls, lineage, and permissions that agents require to operate safely at scale.
Still, analysts cautioned that context alone will not determine which vendor comes out on top.
“The next enterprise AI battleground is not just context. It is verifiable execution,” Walter said.
AIs struggle to understand documents designed for humans; the DocLang working group seeks to flip that imbalance with its specification for machine-readable business documents “built from the ground up for LLM tokenizers.”
The working group, founded by IBM, Nvidia, and Red Hat and hosted by the Linux Foundation’s LF AI & Data project, aims to create an open, universal, AI-native document format designed to improve how enterprises prepare, exchange, and govern document data for AI systems. ABBYY and Human Signal will also be involved in its development, and other contributors are welcome.
“Enterprises today work across a fragmented landscape of document formats, including PDFs, JPEGs, and other file types built primarily for human consumption rather than AI interpretation,” the group said in its launch announcement.
“This disconnect can introduce complexity, raise costs, and reduce reliability when extracting meaning from business documents,” as organizations increasingly rely on generative AI and agentic systems, it said.
Mark Collier, executive director of LF AI & Data, said the goal of the DocLang Specification Working Group is to “develop a vendor-neutral, interoperable standard that helps organizations prepare document data for AI more reliably, transparently, and at scale.”
DocLang defines a structured, machine-readable format for documents of any type, like JSON for data, that any tool can implement and any pipeline can consume. It builds on DocLing, a document processing toolkit hosted by LF AI & Data that can transform human-readable PDFs, word processor documents or spreadsheets into structured data.
Something like DocLang is needed, said independent technology analyst Carmi Levy. “Existing document standards have done an admirable job allowing global stakeholders to confidently collaborate for decades, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that they are in desperate need of an update as AI reshapes the rules around how work gets done,” he explained.
Largely static document types, he said, “can be somewhat limiting when AI is redefining the very word, ‘document.’ In many ways. AI-age documents are far more iterative and dynamic than what they once were, and the definitions need to evolve with the times. The documents we currently live with simply weren’t designed for the AI age.”
Within that context, Levy said, “DocLang represents an early, best hope of achieving some kind of foundational baseline for document standards, one that will hopefully allow more intelligent, more efficient, lower-risk workflows than is currently the case.”
Taking an open-source, vendor-agnostic approach to the process ensures the collective will take precedence over the needs of specific vendors, he said, adding, “earlier standards-setting efforts around networking, documentation, the web, and the cloud powered the free-flowing digital landscape that defines modern life.”
An AI-centric documentation standard will carry that reality into the next generation of technology, said Levy.
The entire concept of LLMs, Jason Andersen, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy said, “involves using natural human languages. The computer is supposed to understand us without us changing our syntax or language. Forcing a syntax on users is exactly what we have today with SEO and more advanced programming languages.”
With something like DocLang, where the standard can be applied to content ingestion, he said, “I would be OK with that being automated, which seems to be the intent. The use case I envision is that when I upload a document to an agent, a skill can be run to preprocess the document into the DocLang standard format, saving tokens.”
That makes sense, he said, adding that he thinks it’s good “if it can help generate outputs, like a visualization, that can be shared outside an AI tool. On that front, that is also why I am liking Web MCP, since you are just adding some code to the page, like CSS or JavaScript, and the consumer, in this case, an AI browser or skill, is better equipped to handle the site.”
The point, he said, is, “these standards need to preserve the fact that humans can still do what they want, and do not need to know any coding to be proficient. In terms of governance, I am not sure if it matters.”
But one analyst did foresee governance problems arising from DocLang’s use.
Yaz Palanichamy, senior research analyst at Info-Tech Research Group, said DocLang adoption will require organizations to implement and review controls in order to scale its use accountably and securely.
This article first appeared on CIO, on June 10, 2026.
For years, the cloud market has made a simple promise: Move workloads to large-scale platforms, gain better resilience, and worry less about downtime. That promise was never entirely wrong, but it is becoming less complete. The latest findings from Uptime Institute’s seventh Annual Outage Analysis suggest that the outage landscape is changing in ways that should concern both cloud providers and cloud customers. The biggest risks are no longer limited to broken physical infrastructure. They are increasingly tied to the complexity of the systems used to run, coordinate, update, and recover that infrastructure.
The most alarming number in the report is that IT and networking issues accounted for 23% of impactful outages in 2024. Uptime Institute links these increases to growing IT and network complexity; the long-term shift toward colocation, cloud, and third-party digital services; and the resulting increase in change-management failures and misconfigurations. That number is more than a statistical footnote. It points to a structural change in how outages happen and why cloud outages are becoming such a stubborn problem.
Hardware redundancy can protect against component failures, but it doesn’t help much when the outage stems from a bad configuration, an automation error, a faulty network change, or an underappreciated control-plane dependency. In those cases, the infrastructure itself may remain intact while the system that governs it breaks down. The industry is learning that resiliency is less about duplicating equipment and more about managing complexity. Today’s increasingly distributed and software-defined environments cannot operate safely at scale.
Uptime’s findings show that power remains the leading cause of major outages, underscoring that traditional infrastructure engineering still matters a great deal. But even as providers continue to improve physical resilience, outages can still arise from the digital and procedural layers above it. Cloud platforms are now dense stacks of services, APIs, orchestration systems, software-defined networks, identity controls, failover logic, and third-party dependencies. That complexity creates more possible points of interaction and more opportunities for an error in one layer to cascade into several others.
This helps explain why outages can feel more surprising today than they did a decade ago. In older data center models, an outage often had a more apparent root cause, such as a power event, a cooling failure, or a hardware fault. In cloud environments, the trigger may be a small configuration change that propagates across regions, a policy update that unintentionally blocks service communication, or a network control failure that affects seemingly unrelated services. These are not failures of raw infrastructure capacity. They are failures of complexity management.
The report’s language around change management and misconfiguration is especially important because it challenges one of the most common assumptions in the cloud market: that scale automatically produces better operational outcomes. The reality? Scale can magnify both strengths and weaknesses. Large cloud providers have more engineering talent, more sophisticated tools, and more redundancy than almost any enterprise customer. But they also run far more interconnected systems at far greater speeds with far more automation. A single process failure can have a wider blast radius.
Another important lesson from the Uptime analysis is that automation has not removed the human factor. If anything, it has changed its form. Even in highly automated environments, human error remains central to the problem. The report notes that in 2025, the share of outages caused by human failure to follow procedures rose by 10 percentage points compared with 2024. A related industry summary of the report notes that 58% of human error-related outages were caused by staff failing to follow established procedures.
That matters because cloud providers often position automation as the answer to reliability. Automation is essential, but it only works as well as the operational model that surrounds it. If teams deploy changes too quickly, rollback paths are weak, approval chains are bypassed, or procedures are incomplete, automation can accelerate failure rather than prevent it. In a modern cloud environment, a human mistake is rarely just a single keystroke. It is more often a design weakness in process, governance, testing, or accountability.
This is also why customers should resist the comforting notion that outages are somebody else’s problem once workloads move to the cloud. Provider-side mistakes remain real, but customer architectures are increasingly entangled with provider networking, identity, observability, and platform services. When an outage occurs, the customer may not have caused it, but they still bear the business impact. The shared responsibility model does not end with security. It extends to resilience planning as well.
The Uptime data points to a clear conclusion: Cloud providers need to treat operational discipline as a first-class design requirement. That starts with better change management. High-risk changes should be tested more aggressively, staged more gradually, and accompanied by stronger rollback mechanisms. Providers also need better dependency mapping to understand how a change in one control layer can affect services far beyond its immediate scope. If the system is too complex to clearly explain, it is too complex to operate.
Providers also need to improve procedural quality. The rise in outages caused by failing to follow procedures suggests that procedures are being ignored under operational pressure or that they are too cumbersome, outdated, or unclear for real production conditions. Neither explanation is comforting. Stronger runbooks, better training, more realistic failure drills, and tighter operational guardrails are not glamorous investments; they are increasingly central to resilience.
Another pressure point is visibility. Uptime notes that software-based and distributed resiliency tools can improve availability, but they also introduce new risks and complicate root-cause analysis. Cloud providers need more transparent and faster incident diagnosis, not just more layers of abstraction. Customers cannot build trust in resilience if every major incident becomes a long exercise in reconstructing opaque service dependencies after the fact.
What’s the financial impact of more frequent problems? Uptime’s 2024 analysis found that 54% of respondents reported that their most recent significant outage cost more than $100,000, and 20% said it cost more than $1 million. These are not edge-case losses. They show that outages remain costly even if they are less frequent than in earlier years.
Customers need to stop evaluating cloud resilience through uptime promises and start evaluating it through failure behavior. How does a provider isolate faults? How transparent is incident communication? How portable are workloads if a major service degrades? How dependent is the architecture on a single region, network path, identity service, or control plane? These are not just technical questions; they are now critical business questions.
The core lesson from Uptime’s data is simple. Outages are becoming a bigger problem for cloud providers and customers because the cloud’s biggest vulnerabilities are increasingly tied to complexity, process failures, and control-plane mistakes, not just broken infrastructure. In addition to adding redundancy, the next phase of cloud improvement will focus on building systems that are easier to understand, safer to change, and more disciplined to operate.
Login