Federated Data Interpretation Systems Reference Architecture (FDIS-RA)

Go to General Topics

The Federated Data Interpretation Systems Reference Architecture (FDIS-RA) is a proposed response to the Structured Information Processing Reference Architecture (SIP-RA) Request for Proposal.

FDIS-RA defines a platform-independent Reference Architecture for the governed interpretation, validation, comparison, and analysis of structured information artifacts in regulated and mission-critical environments. The architecture applies the separation of data, structure, semantics, and interpretation required by SIP-RA to federated systems that process reported information across organizational, jurisdictional, and technological boundaries.

The proposed architecture defines governed processing flows, explicit architectural boundaries, version-controlled interfaces, semantic and interpretive lifecycle controls, and traceability mechanisms that preserve evidentiary integrity and support reproducible interpretation. FDIS-RA provides the architectural response through which the SIP-RA requirements are realized for federated data interpretation systems without prescribing specific implementation technologies, products, transport mechanisms, or deployment topologies.

* 1. Introduction

• 1.1 Architectural Context and Motivation
• 1.2 Purpose and Intent
• 1.3 Reference Architecture Definition
• 1.4 Scope

  • 1.4.1 In Scope

    • 1.4.1.1 Financial Data Interpretation Systems
    • 1.4.1.2 Semantic Interpretation and Validation
    • 1.4.1.3 Architecture and Interfaces
    • 1.4.1.4 Standards Applicability and Coordination
  • 1.4.2 Out of Scope

    • 1.4.2.1 Specific Implementations
    • 1.4.2.2 Product Architectures
    • 1.4.2.3 Enforcement Policy
    • 1.4.2.4 Infrastructure and Platform Standards
• 1.5 Intended Audience

  • 1.5.1 Standards Bodies
  • 1.5.2 Regulators and Supervisory Agencies
  • 1.5.3 System and Enterprise Architects
  • 1.5.4 Technology Providers and Integrators
  • 1.5.5 Researchers and Practitioners in Semantic Governance and Regulatory Technology

* 2. Background and Motivation

• 2.1 International Context and Applicability
• 2.2 The FDTA Context

  • 2.2.1 FDTA Implementation Timeline
  • 2.2.2 Architectural Implications of the FDTA Timeline
• 2.3 The Role of SBRM

  • 2.3.1 Reporting Semantics as a Governed Architectural Concern
  • 2.3.2 Separating Claims, Observations, and Interpretations
  • 2.3.3 Why SBRM Alone Is Not Enough
• 2.4 Existing Functional Capabilities in Reporting Systems

  • 2.4.1 Source Artifact Persistence
  • 2.4.2 Information Extraction and Observation
  • 2.4.3 Observations with Provenance
  • 2.4.4 Semantic Representations
  • 2.4.5 Rules and Validation
  • 2.4.6 The Architectural Gap
• 2.5 Why a Reference Architecture Is Needed

  • 2.5.1 Semantic Drift over Time
  • 2.5.2 Tool-Driven Interpretations
  • 2.5.3 AI Opacity
  • 2.5.4 Lack of Conformance Criteria
  • 2.5.5 Difficulty Proving Comparability Across Systems and Agencies

* 3. FDIS Reference Architecture

• 3.1 Definition
• 3.2 Design Principles of the FDIS Reference Architecture

  • 3.2.1 Governance-Centric Orientation
  • 3.2.2 Explicit Separation of Interpretive Concerns
  • 3.2.3 Pipeline-Oriented, Domain-Centric Composition
  • 3.2.4 Quality Attributes as Architectural Drivers
  • 3.2.5 Independence from Specific Technologies and Tools
  • 3.2.6 Architectural Style as a Foundation for Long-Term Regulatory Reliance
• 3.3 Relationship to OMG Architectures and Standards

  • 3.3.1 Compatibility with Other OMG Reference Architectures
  • 3.3.2 Alignment with OMG Model-Driven Architecture (MDA)
  • 3.3.3 Non-Overlap with Product, Platform, or Implementation Architectures
• 3.4 Normative Artifact Types

  • 3.4.1 Guidance Statements (G)
  • 3.4.2 Interface Definitions (I)
  • 3.4.3 Distinguishing Obligation from Structure
  • 3.4.4 Illustrative Examples
  • 3.4.5 Section-Scoped Normative Artifacts

* 4. Architectural Overview

• 4.1 Architectural Flow and Boundary Model
• 4.2 Interpretation Architecture Model

  • 4.2.1 Pipeline-Based Interpretation Architecture
  • 4.2.2 Signals, Indicators, Parameters, and Arguments
• 4.3 Architectural Style

  • 4.3.1 Governance-Centric Orientation
  • 4.3.2 Explicit Separation of Interpretive Concerns
  • 4.3.3 Pipeline-Oriented, Domain-Centric Composition
  • 4.3.4 Quality Attributes as Architectural Drivers
  • 4.3.5 Independence from Specific Technologies and Tools
  • 4.3.6 Architectural Style as a Foundation for Long-Term Regulatory Reliance
• 4.4 Architectural Boundaries and Responsibilities
• 4.5 Non-Functional Characteristics and Quality Attributes

  • 4.5.1 Maintainability

    • 4.5.1.1 Modularity
    • 4.5.1.2 Reusability
    • 4.5.1.3 Analysability
    • 4.5.1.4 Modifiability
    • 4.5.1.5 Testability
  • 4.5.2 Manageability
  • 4.5.3 Traceability
  • 4.5.4 Contractability
  • 4.5.5 Auditability
  • 4.5.6 Interoperability
  • 4.5.7 Securability
  • 4.5.8 Reliability
  • 4.5.9 Portability
  • 4.5.10 Scalability
  • 4.5.11 Performance

* 5. Core Architectural Components

• 5.1 Data Plane Components

  • 5.1.1 Evidence Intake and Document Custody
  • 5.1.2 Extraction and Observation Generation
  • 5.1.3 Observation and Metadata Management
  • 5.1.4 Semantic Canonicalisation (SBRM-Aligned)
  • 5.1.5 Interpretation, Rules, and Calculation
  • 5.1.6 Validation, Conformance, and Assessment
  • 5.1.7 Analysis, Reporting, and User Interaction
• 5.2 Boundary Realization Components

  • 5.2.1 Ports
  • 5.2.2 Port Interfaces
  • 5.2.3 Adapters
  • 5.2.4 Adapter Realization Pattern
• 5.3 Control Plane Components

  • 5.3.1 Semantic Governance and Version Context Management
  • 5.3.2 Parameter and Configuration Control
  • 5.3.3 Contract Governance and Lifecycle Control
  • 5.3.4 Monitoring, Signals, and Indicators

* 6. Interfaces and Contracts

• 6.1 Interfaces in a Reference Architecture
• 6.2 Core Interface Categories
• 6.3 Form-Scoped Semantic Interfaces (FSIs)
• 6.4 Adapter Modularity, Compatibility, and Reuse
• 6.5 Forking and Parallel Interpretation
• 6.6 Semantic Version and Context Management

* 7. Standards Alignment

• 7.1 Purpose and Scope of Standards Alignment
• 7.2 Relationship to FDTA and Federal Standards Policy
• 7.3 Classification of Standards Used in FDIS

  • 7.3.1 Technical (Governance-Authority) Standards
  • 7.3.2 Defacto (Market-Adopted) Specifications
• 7.4 Use of Defacto Specifications within FDIS-Aligned Architectures
• 7.5 When No Suitable Standard Exists
• 7.6 Mapping Standards to Core Architectural Components
• 7.7 Structure of the Standards Appendix
• 7.8 Summary and Architectural Position

* 8. Who Should Use the FDIS Reference Architecture and When

• 8.1 Regulators and Supervisory Agencies
• 8.2 Standards, Architects, and Governance Bodies
• 8.3 System and Enterprise Architects
• 8.4 Technology Providers and System Integrators
• 8.5 Data Producers and Reporting Entities
• 8.6 Researchers, Policy Analysts, and Oversight Bodies
• 8.7 Summary of Intended Use

* 9. Benefits and Expected Outcomes

• 9.1 Improved Comparability
• 9.2 Reduced Semantic Ambiguity
• 9.3 Improved Auditability and Defensibility
• 9.4 AI Use with Bounded Authority
• 9.5 Long-Term Semantic Stability
• 10. Summary and Next Steps
• 11. References