{ "schemaVersion": "1.0.0", "releaseId": "pal-architecture-intelligence-v1-hf03", "name": "Adaptive SAP + AI Learn Environment", "publicOnly": true, "boundaries": [ "Public learning scenes only; no private customer, employer, credential, system, tenant, or production data is used.", "Simulators are explanatory and non-executing; they never create SAP, Cloudflare, database, R2, email, or external writes.", "SAP product truth must be traced to SAP official learning, help, or architecture guidance. Applied interpretation is labelled separately.", "AI foundation concepts are original explanations grounded in primary or broadly recognized public educational sources." ], "startPrompt": "What do you want to understand today?", "contextActions": [ "CONTINUE", "EXPLORE NEXT", "CHALLENGE YOURSELF", "RECENTLY UNDERSTOOD" ], "profiles": [ "New to SAP", "ABAP Developer", "Functional Consultant", "Technical Consultant", "BTP Developer", "Integration Developer", "AI/Data Engineer", "SAP Architect", "Solution Architect", "Just Exploring", "Skip" ], "goals": [ "SAP Fundamentals", "ABAP Cloud", "CDS", "RAP", "Fiori", "BTP", "CAP", "Integration", "Clean Core", "S/4HANA Transformation", "SAP Build", "Joule", "AI Fundamentals", "Generative AI", "Grounding/RAG", "MCP", "AI Agents", "SAP+AI Architecture", "Architecture Decision Making" ], "capabilityStates": [ "INTRODUCED", "UNDERSTOOD", "EXPLAINED", "PRACTICED", "APPLIED", "CHALLENGE_VALIDATED" ], "answerStates": [ "KNOWN", "PARTIALLY_KNOWN", "UNKNOWN", "PREREQUISITE_NOT_REQUIRED", "READY_FOR_CHALLENGE" ], "authorityLayers": [ { "id": "SAP_STANDARD", "label": "SAP STANDARD", "description": "Official SAP product, platform, learning, help, and architecture guidance.", "sources": [ { "label": "SAP Learning Journeys", "url": "https://learning.sap.com/learning-journeys" }, { "label": "SAP Help Portal - ABAP Cloud", "url": "https://help.sap.com/docs/btp/btp-developers-guide/abap-cloud" }, { "label": "SAP Help Portal - Joule for Developers / ABAP AI", "url": "https://help.sap.com/docs/abap-cross-product/roadmap-info/genai" } ] }, { "id": "AI_FOUNDATION", "label": "AI FOUNDATION", "description": "Original explanations of AI concepts grounded in public educational references and primary course pages.", "sources": [ { "label": "Stanford CS229", "url": "https://cs229.stanford.edu/" }, { "label": "DeepLearning.AI Courses", "url": "https://www.deeplearning.ai/courses" }, { "label": "Andrew Ng Courses", "url": "https://www.andrewng.org/courses" } ] }, { "id": "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT", "label": "APPLIED FIELDCRAFT", "description": "Public-safe implementation patterns, maturity boundaries, and architecture decisions from Prasad Architecture Lab.", "sources": [ { "label": "Architecture Intelligence", "url": "/architecture-intelligence" }, { "label": "Architecture Lab", "url": "/lab" } ] }, { "id": "RESEARCH", "label": "RESEARCH", "description": "Public research records and experiments that support applied architecture learning.", "sources": [ { "label": "Research Index", "url": "/research" }, { "label": "Publications", "url": "/publications" } ] } ], "lenses": [ "Beginner", "Developer", "Architect", "AI", "Security", "Integration", "Evidence" ], "tutorModes": [ { "id": "TEACH", "label": "Teach", "behavior": "Explain the concept in plain language and reveal the minimum viable mental model." }, { "id": "GUIDE", "label": "Guide", "behavior": "Ask the learner to choose the next architecture move and explain the consequence." }, { "id": "CHALLENGE", "label": "Challenge", "behavior": "Hide the answer until the learner makes a decision, then compare it with evidence." }, { "id": "REVIEW", "label": "Review", "behavior": "Summarize what is understood, what remains partial, and the next useful practice." } ], "domains": [ { "id": "sap-foundation", "label": "SAP Foundation", "capabilities": [ "SAP landscape", "S/4HANA core", "process boundaries", "business object thinking" ] }, { "id": "modern-sap-development", "label": "Modern SAP Development", "capabilities": [ "ABAP Cloud", "CDS", "RAP", "Fiori", "released APIs" ] }, { "id": "ai-foundation", "label": "AI Foundation", "capabilities": [ "LLMs", "grounding", "RAG", "evaluation", "agents" ] }, { "id": "sap-business-ai", "label": "SAP Business AI", "capabilities": [ "Joule", "human approval", "SAP write boundary", "traceability" ] }, { "id": "sap-ai-architecture", "label": "SAP+AI Architecture", "capabilities": [ "MCP", "agent governance", "retrieval boundaries", "tool use" ] }, { "id": "architecture-fieldcraft", "label": "Architecture Fieldcraft", "capabilities": [ "trade-offs", "evidence quality", "maturity", "decision records" ] } ], "startIntents": [ { "id": "new-to-sap", "label": "New to SAP", "sceneId": "sap-landscape-primer", "keywords": [ "new sap", "sap basics", "sap landscape", "s/4hana" ] }, { "id": "abap-cds-rap", "label": "ABAP, CDS, RAP", "sceneId": "rap-request-flow", "keywords": [ "abap", "cds", "rap", "fiori", "service binding" ] }, { "id": "btp-s4-clean-core", "label": "BTP / S/4 / Clean Core", "sceneId": "clean-core-decision", "keywords": [ "btp", "clean core", "s/4hana transformation", "extension" ] }, { "id": "ai-zero", "label": "AI from zero", "sceneId": "rag-visual-lab", "keywords": [ "ai", "llm", "rag", "grounding", "generative ai" ] }, { "id": "sap-ai-architecture", "label": "SAP + AI architecture", "sceneId": "sap-ai-agent-boundary", "keywords": [ "sap ai", "agent", "mcp", "joule", "tool" ] }, { "id": "architecture-challenge", "label": "Architecture challenge", "sceneId": "evidence-challenge", "keywords": [ "challenge", "validate", "decision", "evidence" ] } ], "diagnostic": [ { "id": "d1", "prompt": "Can you explain the difference between S/4HANA core behavior and side-by-side extension behavior?", "mapsTo": [ "SAP Fundamentals", "Clean Core" ] }, { "id": "d2", "prompt": "Can you trace a Fiori action through OData, RAP behavior, authorization, validation, and persistence?", "mapsTo": [ "RAP", "Fiori", "ABAP Cloud" ] }, { "id": "d3", "prompt": "Can you say what grounding changes in an LLM answer and what it does not guarantee?", "mapsTo": [ "Generative AI", "Grounding/RAG" ] }, { "id": "d4", "prompt": "Can you identify where human approval belongs before an AI tool writes to SAP?", "mapsTo": [ "AI Agents", "SAP+AI Architecture" ] }, { "id": "d5", "prompt": "Can you separate fact, architecture implication, proposal, and unknown in a design review?", "mapsTo": [ "Architecture Decision Making", "Evidence" ] }, { "id": "d6", "prompt": "Can you choose when integration should be synchronous, asynchronous, event-driven, or workflow-led?", "mapsTo": [ "Integration", "BTP" ] } ], "scenes": [ { "id": "sap-landscape-primer", "title": "SAP landscape primer", "intent": "Build the first useful map of SAP systems, roles, extensions, and evidence.", "domainIds": [ "sap-foundation" ], "defaultState": "INTRODUCED", "authorityLayerIds": [ "SAP_STANDARD", "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" ], "loop": [ "Learn", "See", "Try", "Decide", "Validate", "Explore" ], "provenance": { "authoritative": [ "SAP_STANDARD" ], "interpretation": "Site-native original explanation of landscape boundaries and learning decisions.", "lastVerified": "2026-08-13", "sourceLabels": [ "SAP Learning Journeys" ] }, "components": [ { "id": "s4-core", "label": "S/4HANA core", "what": "The transactional digital core where standard business behavior, master data, and financial/logistics processes live.", "why": "It anchors process truth and should not be casually modified when side-by-side extension is safer.", "owns": "Core business records and standard process execution.", "connects": [ "btp-extension", "fiori-ui" ], "protocol": "Released APIs, OData, events, integration services where available.", "failure": "Unreleased dependency or direct modification can raise upgrade, support, and governance risk.", "remove": "The learning scene loses the source of business process truth.", "authorization": "SAP authorization and role concepts govern access.", "trust": "Trust depends on official APIs, auditability, and business ownership.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "btp-extension", "label": "BTP extension", "what": "A side-by-side application, integration, automation, or AI capability outside the core.", "why": "It helps add capability while keeping core changes contained.", "owns": "Extension logic, user experience, orchestration, integration, or AI boundary.", "connects": [ "s4-core", "identity" ], "protocol": "Destination, API, event, integration, workflow, or service binding.", "failure": "Weak boundaries can turn extension into hidden core coupling.", "remove": "Only standard core behavior remains; innovation surface is reduced.", "authorization": "Requires explicit identity, destination, role, and service permissions.", "trust": "Trust improves when service identity and released interfaces are explicit.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "fiori-ui", "label": "Fiori / UI", "what": "The user-facing interaction layer.", "why": "It turns business intent into traceable requests.", "owns": "Interaction state and visible decision context.", "connects": [ "s4-core", "btp-extension" ], "protocol": "OData or application-specific public APIs.", "failure": "A UI can hide missing authorization, stale evidence, or over-broad actions.", "remove": "The architecture can still run, but the learner loses the practical user journey.", "authorization": "UI roles must align with backend permissions.", "trust": "Trust depends on transparency and safe defaults.", "evidence": "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" } ], "challenge": "Choose one extension candidate and explain whether it belongs in core, side-by-side BTP, or integration." }, { "id": "rap-request-flow", "title": "RAP request flow", "intent": "Trace how a user action becomes a governed ABAP Cloud/RAP business operation.", "domainIds": [ "modern-sap-development" ], "defaultState": "PRACTICED", "authorityLayerIds": [ "SAP_STANDARD", "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" ], "loop": [ "Learn", "See", "Try", "Decide", "Validate", "Explore" ], "provenance": { "authoritative": [ "SAP_STANDARD" ], "interpretation": "Site-native original trace of request, authorization, validation, behavior, and persistence responsibilities.", "lastVerified": "2026-08-13", "sourceLabels": [ "SAP Help Portal - ABAP Cloud" ] }, "components": [ { "id": "fiori-action", "label": "Fiori action", "what": "A user intent such as create, update, approve, simulate, or review.", "why": "It makes the business action explicit before backend behavior executes.", "owns": "Interaction intent and input.", "connects": [ "odata-service" ], "protocol": "HTTP/OData interaction.", "failure": "Missing validation or unclear intent can lead to unsafe backend execution.", "remove": "The request has no business actor or visible intent.", "authorization": "Frontend visibility does not replace backend authorization.", "trust": "Trust begins with clear action labels and constrained inputs.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "odata-service", "label": "OData service binding", "what": "The public service contract for the application flow.", "why": "It exposes governed operations rather than private internals.", "owns": "API contract and service exposure.", "connects": [ "rap-behavior", "authorization" ], "protocol": "OData.", "failure": "Over-broad exposure or private implementation leakage can weaken supportability.", "remove": "The UI no longer has a governed service boundary.", "authorization": "Authorization must still be enforced below the service.", "trust": "Trust rises when the service contract is narrow and documented.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "rap-behavior", "label": "RAP behavior", "what": "Business operations, validations, determinations, and persistence behavior.", "why": "It is where business intent becomes controlled transactional behavior.", "owns": "Business rules and execution semantics.", "connects": [ "authorization", "persistence" ], "protocol": "ABAP Cloud/RAP framework interaction.", "failure": "Skipping validation or mixing UI assumptions into behavior creates brittle designs.", "remove": "The request loses business semantics.", "authorization": "Checks must match business and technical responsibility.", "trust": "Trust comes from testable rules and explicit failure states.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "persistence", "label": "Persistence", "what": "The data store behind governed business objects.", "why": "It records the durable business result.", "owns": "Committed state.", "connects": [ "rap-behavior" ], "protocol": "Framework-managed persistence.", "failure": "Direct writes around behavior can bypass integrity.", "remove": "The operation becomes non-durable or purely simulated.", "authorization": "Persistence should not be the first line of business authorization.", "trust": "Trust depends on correct behavior before commit.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" } ], "challenge": "Step through the flow and decide where authorization, validation, and evidence should be checked." }, { "id": "clean-core-decision", "title": "Clean Core decision simulator", "intent": "Classify a change request as standard configuration, released API extension, side-by-side app, integration, or proposal.", "domainIds": [ "sap-foundation", "modern-sap-development", "architecture-fieldcraft" ], "defaultState": "APPLIED", "authorityLayerIds": [ "SAP_STANDARD", "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" ], "loop": [ "Learn", "See", "Try", "Decide", "Validate", "Explore" ], "provenance": { "authoritative": [ "SAP_STANDARD" ], "interpretation": "Site-native original Clean Core decision simulator; not a substitute for project-specific SAP architecture review.", "lastVerified": "2026-08-13", "sourceLabels": [ "SAP Learning Journeys", "SAP Help Portal - ABAP Cloud" ] }, "decisionOptions": [ { "id": "standard-first", "label": "Use standard capability", "result": "Prefer this when the requirement fits supported standard behavior with acceptable process adaptation.", "risk": "Low extension risk; business change management may be the main work." }, { "id": "released-api-extension", "label": "Extend through released API", "result": "Appropriate when SAP provides a stable interface and the extension has its own lifecycle.", "risk": "Medium; governance shifts to API versioning, authorization, and failure handling." }, { "id": "side-by-side-btp", "label": "Build side-by-side on BTP", "result": "Useful when innovation should be isolated from core upgrades and lifecycle.", "risk": "Medium; integration, identity, monitoring, and data ownership must be explicit." }, { "id": "core-modification", "label": "Modify core behavior", "result": "Escalate. This is not recommended as a default and requires strong justification.", "risk": "High; upgrade friction, supportability, and hidden coupling risk increase." } ], "challenge": "A team asks for a custom approval rule inside core. Decide what evidence is needed before choosing an option." }, { "id": "sap-ai-agent-boundary", "title": "SAP + AI agent boundary", "intent": "Understand how LLMs, grounding, tools, human approval, and SAP writes should be separated.", "domainIds": [ "ai-foundation", "sap-business-ai", "sap-ai-architecture" ], "defaultState": "PRACTICED", "authorityLayerIds": [ "SAP_STANDARD", "AI_FOUNDATION", "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" ], "loop": [ "Learn", "See", "Try", "Decide", "Validate", "Explore" ], "provenance": { "authoritative": [ "SAP_STANDARD", "AI_FOUNDATION" ], "interpretation": "Site-native original simulator showing fact, implication, proposal, unknown, and approval boundaries.", "lastVerified": "2026-08-13", "sourceLabels": [ "SAP Help Portal - Joule for Developers / ABAP AI", "DeepLearning.AI Courses" ] }, "components": [ { "id": "user-intent", "label": "User intent", "what": "The business or learning request.", "why": "It constrains what the AI system is allowed to solve.", "owns": "Goal, context, and approval authority.", "connects": [ "retrieval", "llm" ], "protocol": "UI or chat input.", "failure": "Ambiguous requests can cause overreach.", "remove": "The system has no legitimate action target.", "authorization": "User role and purpose must be checked before tool use.", "trust": "Trust depends on transparent request interpretation.", "evidence": "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" }, { "id": "retrieval", "label": "Grounding / RAG", "what": "A retrieval layer that supplies relevant source context.", "why": "It can reduce unsupported answers, but it does not guarantee correctness by itself.", "owns": "Source selection, retrieval quality, and citations.", "connects": [ "llm", "evidence-check" ], "protocol": "Search, embeddings, or document retrieval.", "failure": "Stale, missing, or mis-ranked sources can still mislead.", "remove": "The answer may rely only on model prior and prompt context.", "authorization": "Retrieval must respect access boundaries.", "trust": "Trust improves with provenance and freshness checks.", "evidence": "AI_FOUNDATION" }, { "id": "llm", "label": "LLM reasoning", "what": "A probabilistic language model that drafts interpretation, options, and explanations.", "why": "It can synthesize but must be constrained by evidence and policy.", "owns": "Natural-language synthesis, not business truth.", "connects": [ "evidence-check", "human-approval" ], "protocol": "Model API or managed AI runtime.", "failure": "Hallucination, stale assumptions, or unsupported proposal.", "remove": "The architecture becomes deterministic workflow without generative explanation.", "authorization": "The model should not receive data it is not allowed to process.", "trust": "Trust requires grounding, validation, and disclosure of uncertainty.", "evidence": "AI_FOUNDATION" }, { "id": "human-approval", "label": "Human approval", "what": "A required decision point before consequential SAP writes.", "why": "It keeps accountability with an authorized human.", "owns": "Approval, rejection, or escalation.", "connects": [ "sap-tool" ], "protocol": "Workflow task, approval UI, or audited control.", "failure": "Removing approval can allow unreviewed automated business impact.", "remove": "SAP write governance becomes unsafe for consequential operations.", "authorization": "Approver must be authorized for the business action.", "trust": "Trust comes from auditability and separation of suggestion from execution.", "evidence": "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" }, { "id": "sap-tool", "label": "SAP tool boundary", "what": "The constrained interface that can read or write SAP under explicit authorization.", "why": "Tool boundaries separate suggestions from executable business effects.", "owns": "Approved operation execution.", "connects": [ "s4-system" ], "protocol": "Released API, workflow, or integration contract.", "failure": "Broad tools can create excessive authority and weak audit trails.", "remove": "AI can advise but cannot execute SAP operations.", "authorization": "Least privilege and operation-specific authorization are required.", "trust": "Trust depends on narrow operations and durable logs.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" } ], "challenge": "Classify an AI-generated SAP action as FACT, ARCHITECTURE_IMPLICATION, PROPOSAL, or UNKNOWN before allowing any write path." }, { "id": "rag-visual-lab", "title": "RAG visual lab", "intent": "See how retrieval, grounding, model generation, and evidence checking cooperate.", "domainIds": [ "ai-foundation", "sap-ai-architecture" ], "defaultState": "UNDERSTOOD", "authorityLayerIds": [ "AI_FOUNDATION", "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" ], "loop": [ "Learn", "See", "Try", "Decide", "Validate", "Explore" ], "provenance": { "authoritative": [ "AI_FOUNDATION" ], "interpretation": "Site-native original RAG visual explanation with SAP architecture examples.", "lastVerified": "2026-08-13", "sourceLabels": [ "DeepLearning.AI RAG", "Stanford CS229" ] }, "components": [ { "id": "query", "label": "Question", "what": "The user asks a bounded question.", "why": "A better question improves retrieval and answerability.", "owns": "Problem statement.", "connects": [ "retriever" ], "protocol": "Text input.", "failure": "Unclear scope causes weak retrieval.", "remove": "No retrieval target exists.", "authorization": "Only permitted sources may be queried.", "trust": "A narrow question is easier to validate.", "evidence": "AI_FOUNDATION" }, { "id": "retriever", "label": "Retriever", "what": "Finds candidate evidence.", "why": "It gives the model source material.", "owns": "Source recall and ranking.", "connects": [ "generator" ], "protocol": "Search or vector retrieval.", "failure": "Relevant evidence may be missing or stale.", "remove": "The answer is not grounded in retrieved sources.", "authorization": "Retrieval follows source permissions.", "trust": "Trust needs source visibility.", "evidence": "AI_FOUNDATION" }, { "id": "generator", "label": "Generator", "what": "Drafts an answer from prompt and retrieved context.", "why": "It makes evidence understandable.", "owns": "Synthesis, not source truth.", "connects": [ "evidence-check" ], "protocol": "LLM call.", "failure": "May combine true facts into unsupported conclusions.", "remove": "The lab becomes search-only.", "authorization": "Prompt and context must be policy-safe.", "trust": "Trust requires checking claims against evidence.", "evidence": "AI_FOUNDATION" } ], "challenge": "Identify whether an answer is grounded, partially grounded, stale, or a proposal." }, { "id": "evidence-challenge", "title": "Evidence challenge", "intent": "Practice deciding what a claim proves, does not prove, and cannot answer.", "domainIds": [ "architecture-fieldcraft" ], "defaultState": "READY_FOR_CHALLENGE", "authorityLayerIds": [ "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT", "RESEARCH" ], "loop": [ "Learn", "See", "Try", "Decide", "Validate", "Explore" ], "provenance": { "authoritative": [ "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT", "RESEARCH" ], "interpretation": "Site-native original public-safe evidence classification exercise.", "lastVerified": "2026-08-13", "sourceLabels": [ "Architecture Intelligence", "Research Index" ] }, "challengeRecords": [ { "claim": "A prototype exists, so production readiness is proven.", "answer": "PARTIAL", "why": "A prototype can prove feasibility, but production readiness also needs operational, security, performance, and governance evidence." }, { "claim": "A chronology shows one architecture caused the next one.", "answer": "NO_ANSWER", "why": "Chronology can show sequence. It does not prove causality unless the evidence explicitly links cause and decision." }, { "claim": "A public-safe simulator can create SAP production data.", "answer": "CONFLICT", "why": "The Learn and Studio boundaries explicitly say simulators are non-executing and public-only." } ], "challenge": "Classify each claim before opening the related Studio evidence panel." } ], "simulators": { "breakArchitecture": [ { "id": "remove-service-binding", "label": "Remove service binding", "changed": "The UI no longer has a governed public contract.", "stillWorks": "Internal conceptual behavior may still be explainable.", "breaks": "Executable request flow and clear API boundary.", "risk": "Hidden coupling and unsupported exposure.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "remove-auth", "label": "Remove authorization", "changed": "The architecture no longer proves who may act.", "stillWorks": "A demo might still show screens or generated text.", "breaks": "Trust, accountability, and safe execution.", "risk": "Unauthorized access or action.", "evidence": "SAP_STANDARD" }, { "id": "remove-grounding", "label": "Remove grounding", "changed": "The model loses explicit source context.", "stillWorks": "The LLM may still produce fluent explanations.", "breaks": "Evidence-backed answerability.", "risk": "Unsupported or stale claims.", "evidence": "AI_FOUNDATION" }, { "id": "unrestricted-sap-write", "label": "Allow unrestricted SAP write", "changed": "Suggestion and execution collapse into one broad authority path.", "stillWorks": "A tool may technically execute.", "breaks": "Human approval, least privilege, and auditable boundary.", "risk": "High-impact automated business change without accountable review.", "evidence": "APPLIED_FIELDCRAFT" } ], "whatIf": [ "No released API exists", "Latency is critical", "Consistency is strict", "The LLM hallucinates", "The model changes", "An AI tool can write SAP", "Traffic is 100x higher", "Lifecycle ownership changes", "A source is stale" ], "classifications": [ "FACT", "ARCHITECTURE_IMPLICATION", "PROPOSAL", "UNKNOWN" ] } }