29 min readJust now

–

Press enter or click to view image in full size

If you believe this framework is needed by the market, please leave a short comment or quick feedback at the end. It will help prioritize the next iterations.

1. Introduction: Why LLMs are not “just another API”

Terminology:

LLM = Large Language Model

RAG = Retrieval‑Augmented Generation

MCP = Model Context Protocol

AI‑CP = AI Control Plane (governability layer for prompts, agents, orchestration, RAG)

SLA = Service Level Agreement

DAU = Daily Active Users

Golden set = fixed regression test set used as an evaluation gate

Evaluation gate (eval gate) = an automated check that a change passes quality and cost thresholds before release

Mega‑prompt = monolithic prompt without modular structure or versioning

JSON Schema = the formal contract for model output;

Canary/shadow, Blue/green = progressive delivery techniques;

Many teams still treat Large Language Models as if they were another cloud endpoint: send a request, parse a response, ship the feature.

This assumption looks harmless.

It is also the root cause of most failures we now see in production.

LLMs do not behave like typical services. They do not align with the deterministic worldview that software engineering has refined for decades. They introduce variability, hidden state, shifting behavior, and an entirely new category of logic: linguistic logic. And when teams assume “it’s just an API,” they walk straight into the same trap that dozens of others already discovered the hard way.

We have lived through technological shifts before.

When OOP matured, we gained design patterns, shared vocabulary, and standards.

When microservices spread, we gained orchestration patterns, SLAs, and observability.

With LLMs we gained something much thinner: API keys, blog posts, fragmented advice.

No real methodology.

No operating model.

No shared discipline to keep systems stable.

So teams did what teams always do: they experimented. Quickly, creatively, often with impressive early results. And just as often, those promising demos collapsed as soon as they met real users, real data, and real operational constraints.

A case from practice

After I published an earlier version of this framework [1], a representative of a U.S. startup working on AI integrations for call centers contacted me. He had read the section about the “AI hype → PoC → stagnation” cycle and wrote one sentence that captured their entire story:

“Everything you described happened to us exactly.”

Their internal tests looked fantastic.

The model tagged calls automatically, generated clean summaries, and even handled edge cases gracefully.

But once the system met real customers — different accents, mixed languages, stress, unpredictable emotions — the façade cracked. Quality became inconsistent. Errors accumulated. The cost of quality control suddenly required a separate track of work.

And their conclusion was painfully honest:

“We started without any methodology. No checklists, no versioning, no evaluation loops. If a framework like this existed earlier, it would have saved us months.”

This is not an isolated experience.

It is the dominant pattern across the industry.

Not an exception. A pattern.

Open a few GitHub issues, Reddit discussions, or Hacker News threads about LLM failures in production. The story repeats almost word for word. A team builds a demo, shows impressive early results, ships quickly to production, and then discovers an entire ecosystem of problems they did not prepare for: drift, variability, brittleness, uncontrolled costs, and no way to trace or govern the system once it starts misbehaving.

This is not a vendor problem.

It is not a “weak prompt” problem.

It is a systemic absence of method.

Early warning signs

A few indicators appear again and again. If any of these are present, the team is already on unstable ground: test results that don’t match production, quality that varies from run to run, integrations assembled informally, no prompt versioning, no rollback path, no evaluation baseline, no owner for the “language logic” inside the system.

The strongest signal is simple:

No one on the team can explain how the LLM logic is tested, versioned, validated, and deployed.

The real problem is not the model. It is the missing methodology.

Teams look for stronger prompts. They try new models. They tweak vendor parameters. But the problem is not the prompt. The problem is the absence of discipline: roles, processes, evaluation gates, versioning rules, governance structures.

In other words, teams lack a unified framework.

One that works across domains, stacks, and suppliers.

One that treats LLM systems as a new architectural class rather than a novel API call.

That missing layer is what hurts the market the most today.

And to understand why it is missing, and why it is so expensive to ignore, we need to examine the architectural constant that makes LLMs fundamentally different from everything that came before.

The next chapter explains exactly that.

2. The Core Problem: There Is No Methodology

LLMs are being embedded into almost everything today. Internal assistants, customer-facing workflows, analytics, automation, even compliance tools. The adoption curve is massive.

But the way these systems are being integrated is almost identical everywhere — fast, improvised, and fragile.

A typical team gets an idea, spins up a prototype in a few weeks, shows a demo that looks convincing, and ships it straight to production. The early success creates a false sense of stability. But once real-world data appears, things begin to slip. Quality drifts. Support becomes unpredictable. Costs expand in the background. Maintenance slowly transforms into a separate project.

From the outside, it looks like a technical problem.

Inside, it is something else entirely: teams are building LLM systems without any shared methodology, operating model, or architectural discipline.

Instead of a system, they accumulate patches.

They add a second model to “check” the first.

They rewrite prompts again and again.

They shrink context windows to reduce chaos.

They tweak vendor settings with hope instead of strategy.

But none of these address the root cause.

Without a structural foundation, every fix becomes temporary, and technical debt compounds silently.

A case from practice

In one of the projects I advised, the team integrated an LLM directly through the API. Their logic looked simple: take a pile of semi-structured text, send it to the model with the instruction “Generate a report,” and wait for something useful.

The engineers were strong. Their code was clean.

The problem was not engineering talent.

The problem was the assumption that “language logic” behaves like deterministic code.

LLM-driven systems require their own thinking.

You must know how the SDLC changes when part of your logic is probabilistic.

You need defined roles: who owns prompts, who owns retrieval, who owns evaluation.

You need versioning for prompts, regression sets for quality, a contract for output formats, a way to track cost per agent and per flow, and a clear audit trail.

You need a rollback path that works in minutes, not days.

None of this existed.

So the team kept fixing symptoms instead of the structure.

Hiring a single “AI expert” would not have solved it either.

Even extremely capable people burn out when the surrounding environment lacks the governance and discipline required to make LLM systems predictable.

What failing integrations actually look like

When LLM projects scale without method, the story is predictable.

The main prompt grows into a fragile monolith that no one wants to touch.

Output becomes unpredictable because there is no contract — just free-form text that breaks downstream logic in small, hard-to-debug ways.

Quality begins to fade quietly because there is no evaluation loop, no golden set, no drift detection, no baseline metrics.

Model updates are applied without audit and without rollback capability.

RAG pipelines are assembled informally; indexes become stale, retrieval becomes noisy, context windows grow until cost inflates and accuracy collapses.

Budgets drift because no one tracks cost at the level where it matters: per prompt, agent, or flow.

The symptoms differ by team, but the cause is always the same.

You cannot scale LLM systems without clear roles, architectural discipline, and ownership.

A simple diagnostic: method or improvisation?

Here is the same pattern expressed more cleanly.

If the left column is missing, the right column is what is happening behind the scenes.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

If several rows resonate, the team is not behind schedule.

It is missing the operating model the system requires.

The real reason teams struggle

Here is the uncomfortable truth:

LLMs behave differently from everything that came before them.

They introduce variability, drift, context dependence, and hidden state into the logic.

Classic SDLC assumes determinism.

LLMs remove that assumption entirely.

This is why traditional approaches collapse when applied to LLM systems.

This is why teams repeat the same mistakes even across different stacks and vendors.

They are not fighting bugs — they are fighting physics.

And the only way forward is to accept the unique constant that defines LLM behavior: uncertainty.

Once that is accepted, the rest becomes obvious: versioning, evaluation, contracts, governance, rollback.

Not as optional safeguards, but as architectural requirements.

The next chapter explores this constant directly.

3. A New Architectural Constant: Uncertainty

Classical software development is grounded in a simple expectation: the same input should always produce the same output.

You can test it, step through it in a debugger, replay it, and remain confident that tomorrow the system won’t suddenly behave differently.

LLMs broke this expectation the moment they entered production.

Even when temperature is set to zero, modern inference stacks can produce different outputs from identical requests. Batching effects, numerical quirks inside GPU kernels, subtle changes in tokenization, invisible internal states, silent vendor updates: all of these make behavior drift not an anomaly but a normal condition of the technology.[2][3]

This is not a bug.

This is the fundamental physics of LLM systems.

Why this happens

Uncertainty emerges from several forces working at once.

The model’s response depends heavily on phrasing and context order.

Its internal states are opaque, which means even the engineer who built the system cannot fully predict how it will resolve the same instruction tomorrow.

Vendors update safety layers or serving infrastructure, sometimes without public changelogs.

Even an on-prem model changes character after a framework upgrade or a new training cycle.

Taken together, these factors create a constant background of variability.

Not occasional. Constant.

What this means for architects

Reliable LLM systems are built on the assumption that variability is unavoidable.

This shifts the design mindset.

Instead of “How do we prevent the model from ever misbehaving?” the more realistic question becomes “How do we make the system safe even when it does?”

Practical implications follow naturally:

you need fallback paths for malformed or partial answers;

you need a way to compare behavior before and after a model update;

you need tooling for quick human review of high-impact cases;

you need versioned prompts and models so that drift can be measured instead of guessed.

This is not a theoretical requirement. It’s operational hygiene.

A case from practice

For months, I used a fairly large prompt(about thirty lines) that produced stable, predictable answers across several model versions.

Then version 5 arrived.

Suddenly the same prompt behaved differently. Sometimes I received a full answer in a single response. Other times the model returned only a fragment and asked whether I wanted it to continue. From a classical engineering perspective this looks like a critical regression. But within LLM systems it is completely normal.

The architecture around the model must be ready for this.

Multi-part responses should be merged automatically.

Fallback queries should exist for alternate modes.

Regression tests should highlight changes the moment they appear.

If none of these mechanisms are present, unpredictability leaks straight into user-visible behavior.

Not a vendor-specific quirk

This pattern holds everywhere: OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta, Mistral.

Cloud or on-prem.

Commercial or open-source.

Even your own fine-tuned model drifts after retraining or after a seemingly harmless update to the inference stack.

This is not about the “right provider” or the “right parameter”.

It is the mathematical nature of modern language models.

The bottom line

Once you accept uncertainty as an architectural constant, the rest of the framework becomes obvious.

Versioning is no longer optional.

Evaluation gates are no longer “nice to have”.

Contracts, provenance, drift detection, rollback plans — these turn into basic survival tools rather than advanced practices.

The next chapter focuses exactly on this:

how uncertainty shows up at every layer of the LLM stack, and how to design systems that remain controlled even when the model itself is not fully predictable.

4. The LLM Stack and Why Uncertainty Appears at Every Layer

If you look closely at any real LLM system, you’ll notice something interesting. The model itself is only one source of variability. The uncertainty starts much earlier and spreads much wider. It appears in prompts, agents, orchestration flows, retrieval pipelines, and even in the infrastructure that surrounds them.

These examples are simplified on purpose. Any experienced engineer could argue that each problem “should have been solved by transactions, contracts, queues, idempotency, schemas.” And that’s true in classical systems.

But the moment your logic depends on an LLM, every familiar tool behaves differently because part of the system is now linguistic, probabilistic, and sensitive to context and data drift.

LLM integrations almost never exist in isolation. They stretch across layers, and each layer amplifies or mutates uncertainty in its own way. Understanding these layers is the first step toward building systems that remain predictable even when the model is not.

4.1 Prompt Layer

This is the most visible part of any LLM-driven system. Prompts are templates, instructions, scaffolding. But they’re also where business logic quietly accumulates, often without versioning or structure.

Even a stable prompt can shift behavior unexpectedly. A slight change in formatting, a different ordering of examples, or a vendor update can reshape the output. A model that returned perfect JSON yesterday may decide today that a markdown wrapper is a good stylistic improvement. It might produce an object instead of an array when there is only one item. Dates may switch formats without warning.

Nothing “broke,” and yet everything did.

The system is still logically correct from the model’s perspective. It is the contract that is fragile. This is why prompts are not just text; they are executable logic that must be versioned and treated as code.

4.2 Agent Layer

Agents interpret user intent, decide which tools to call, and carry state forward. They are powerful precisely because they are flexible. And that flexibility is also what introduces uncertainty.

Imagine an agent with three tools: check order status, create order, reorder last. A new tool shifts its reasoning patterns. Suddenly, when the user writes “my order didn’t arrive,” the agent might decide to create a new order instead of checking the old one. This leads to duplicate purchases and confused customers.

Retry behavior can introduce its own surprises.

If a confirmation email is generated by an LLM and the first attempt times out, the second attempt produces a slightly different text. The email hash changes, so your send-once logic fails, and the customer receives two messages.

The fix looks obvious in hindsight: pin the prompt version, store the generated message, and treat retries as idempotent by business key. But this discipline doesn’t emerge naturally in agent-driven systems unless enforced from outside.

Agents don’t just create errors. They accumulate them. Tiny misinterpretations snowball because each step depends on what the previous step believed about the world.

4.3 Orchestration Layer

When a system grows beyond a single agent, orchestration becomes the glue that decides how multiple components interact. Variability here becomes far more dangerous because orchestration multiplies whatever uncertainty flows upward.

Picture a flow that runs three tasks in parallel: a RAG lookup, an intent classifier, and a profile enrichment step. If the last task finishes later than expected, it might overwrite the combined context from the first two. The system doesn’t crash; it simply answers confidently with information from another session.

The result is “valid but wrong,” which is the most dangerous type of error in LLM workflows. Orchestration must manage not only execution but also state consistency, timing, and provenance. Otherwise, it propagates uncertainty rather than containing it.

4.4 Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

RAG introduces knowledge into prompts. At first glance it seems like a simple lookup problem. In practice it becomes one of the most fragile parts of the stack.

Relevance changes over time. Semantic similarity can drift when the embedding model is updated. Older documents can suddenly rank higher. A nearly identical “Policy 2023” and “Policy 2024” might swap order because of an embedding model update. The model then quotes outdated rules with full confidence.

RAG isn’t just a retrieval layer. It becomes a moving source of truth that can shift whenever embeddings, indexes, storage formats, or underlying data change. And because RAG feeds directly into prompts and agents, its drift propagates everywhere.[4]

4.5 MCP and the AI Control Plane

Understanding where uncertainty originates naturally leads to a more important question:

How do we keep the full system manageable when part of it behaves unpredictably?

Two components help answer this: MCP and the broader concept of the AI Control Plane.

MCP (Model Context Protocol)

MCP standardizes how tools and data sources connect to models. It reduces glue code and gives structure to the “model ↔ tool” interface. It makes systems more portable across vendors.[9]

What it does not solve is equally important.

It doesn’t handle versioning, eval gates, drift detection, SLAs, cost budgets, rollbacks, or audit trails. MCP is useful, but it sits too low in the stack to enforce disciplined governance.

The AI Control Plane (AI-CP)

The Control Plane is the missing layer in most LLM systems.

It is where all the stochastic logic becomes governable.

At its minimum viable form, the Control Plane keeps track of versions (prompts, models, agents, indexes), controls releases with canaries and rollbacks, evaluates changes through golden test sets, applies guardrails and schemas, enforces policy-as-code, manages budgets, traces execution chains, alerts on drift, and provides auditability.

A simple RAG update illustrates its role.

A new embedder requires a rebuilt index. The Control Plane performs that rebuild in shadow mode, runs the golden set, deploys to a small percentage of traffic, watches the cost curve and latency, and rolls back instantly if needed. Without this layer, teams are blind to such regressions.

MCP vs AI-CP (conceptual comparison)

The distinction is straightforward.

MCP tells you how to plug things in.

AI-CP tells you how to operate them safely at scale.

MCP is a protocol.

AI-CP is a governance system.

One is wiring.

The other is control.

4.6 Supporting Practices Inside the Control Plane

Several practices gain new meaning once seen through the lens of a Control Plane:

• LLMOps / PromptOps give you version history, A/B testing, and repeatable evaluations.[6][7]
• Explicit orchestration (graphs, state machines) ensures that agents don’t invent their own logic.
• Programmatic prompting turns prompts into modular, testable artifacts rather than fragile strings.
• Observability helps trace why an LLM took a particular path.
• Guardrails and policy-as-code enforce safety and compliance.
• RAG governance treats indexes and embedders as versioned artifacts.
• Cost controls and adaptive limits keep the system within budget.
• Release engineering (shadow, canary, approval gates) makes stochastic updates safe.

These aren’t “advanced techniques.” They are what makes LLM-driven systems maintainable.

4.7 A useful analogy

MCP and SDKs are like Jira.

They help you create tasks, workflows, structures.

The Control Plane and methodology are like Scrum.

They tell you how to work in a predictable, repeatable, auditable way.

A tool without a process leads to chaos.

A process without a tool becomes slow.

LLM systems need both.

In the next chapter, we introduce the minimal framework that lets teams evolve from prototype to governed platform without drowning in infrastructure.

5. LLM Framework v0.1: From a Lightweight Start to Governed Scale

By now we have covered the foundations: MCP as the wiring layer, the AI Control Plane as the governing layer, and the ways uncertainty creeps into every part of the stack. All of this gives teams powerful capabilities — yet none of it guarantees orderly growth.

Without structure, teams either remain stuck in an endless experimental mode or grow complexity faster than they can control it. The industry has enough examples of both.

This chapter introduces a practical, incremental path: LLM Framework v0.1, a three-level growth ladder that lets a team move from a quick prototype to a governed platform without overbuilding infrastructure on day one.

It is deliberately minimal. And it is designed to scale only when the real-world signals say you need to scale.

5.0 How to Read This Framework

The framework defines three levels: Mini, Mid, and Enterprise. Each level builds on the previous one and introduces just enough structure to keep the system reliable at its current scale.

Every level has five components:

1. Invariants — elements that never change regardless of scale
2. Artifacts — what must exist as a tangible part of your system
3. Release rituals — how changes move safely into production
4. Quality and monitoring — how drift and regressions are detected
5. Signals for moving to the next level

The point is not to build an enterprise architecture prematurely. The point is to let teams climb the ladder one step at a time.

5.1 Invariants: What Never Changes

Regardless of whether you are running a small prototype or a cross-product AI platform, several principles must hold from day one. These invariants are the backbone of any reliable LLM system:

• Prompt, model, agent, index and flow versioning
• A golden test set and regular evaluation
• A rollback path that works in minutes
• Small, modular prompts and agents
• Strict output contracts (JSON Schema or similar)
• Basic observability: prompt hash, model version, index version, cost, latency, provenance

MCP gives you standardised connections.

The AI Control Plane gives you governance.

On the Mini level, this can be implemented with Git and a few scripts. On the Enterprise level, it becomes a full platform. But the invariants themselves do not change.

5.2 Mini Level — From PoC to First Stable Production

When this level is appropriate:

Small teams, a couple of LLM features, a few hundred daily users, and no life-critical impact of errors.

This is the “lightweight discipline” phase. The system must work reliably, but the investment should stay small.

Core artifacts:

• Prompts versioned in Git.
• A JSON Schema with a validator.
• A golden set of 20–50 cases.
• A simple rollback plan.

Release process:

• Run the golden set before every deployment.
• One feature flag to turn the feature on or off.
• LLM logic executed server-side for control.

Quality and monitoring:

• Logs stored in CSV or SQLite.
• Weekly manual review of a small case sample.
• Simple cost and JSON-error alerts.

SLA and cost:

• A broad cost budget and manual limits are enough.

Signals that it is time to move to Mid:

• Thousands of daily users.
• The feature impacts revenue or contracts.
• RAG appears, or multiple agents enter a flow.

The Mini level is intentionally simple. It keeps you safe without slowing you down.

5.3 Mid Level — Repeatability and Control

When this level is appropriate:

10–50 engineers, RAG in production, compliance requirements, and large DAU counts.

This is the level where discipline becomes necessary because mistakes have material consequences.

Core artifacts:

• Version manifests for all components.
• A catalog of golden sets (smoke, regression, sensitive cases).
• Policies for PII filtering and schema validation.

Release process:

• CI-driven evaluation before merging.
• Shadow deploys in production.
• Canaries on 1–5 percent of traffic.
• A kill switch that works instantly.

Quality and monitoring:

• Tracing that includes prompt hashes, context versions, RAG sources.
• Drift alerts.
• Weekly quality reports.
• Monthly architectural decision records.

SLA and cost:

• Budgets defined per agent and per flow.
• JSON validity SLA at 99.5 percent or higher.

Signals that it is time to move to Enterprise:

• Regulated domain obligations.
• High cost of downtime or misbehavior.
• Multiple model providers or distributed teams.

At this level the system becomes predictable, inspectable and governable.

5.4 Enterprise Level — Full Governability and Audit

When this level is appropriate:

Multiple products, strict regulation, external audits, thousands of agent calls per hour.

This is not “more Mid.”

This is the transition from “managed by team” to “managed by platform.”

Core artifacts:

A complete AI Control Plane.

Full catalogs of prompts, agents, and flows with historical lineage.

Release process:

• Shadow plus canary plus blue/green.
• Approval gates for high-impact changes.
• Regular eval days and chaos testing.

Quality and monitoring:

• Policy-as-code across the stack.
• Explainability mechanisms.
• Full traceability from request to model to downstream effects.

SLA and cost:

• Business-level contracts.
• Predictive cost modeling.
• Vendor balancing and multi-model strategies.

Enterprise is about composability, auditability, and operational guarantees.

5.5 A Compact Level Comparison

A simplified way to see the differences:

Press enter or click to view image in full size

If you’re in the right column but operating like the left one — you’re accumulating silent risk.

5.6 On-Device LLM vs Cloud Models

By 2025, hybrid architectures have become the default. On-device LLMs offer privacy and offline capability but limited capacity. Cloud models offer top quality and managed infrastructure but at a higher price and with data transfer considerations.[10]

On-device makes sense when:

• Privacy or offline mode is essential.
• The task is simple (classification, formatting).
• Hardware is controlled (GPU/NPU presence).

Cloud makes sense when:

• You need high generation quality.
• You operate at scale with SLA requirements.
• You experiment or update frequently (A/B, canary).

Hybrid reality:

• Simple tasks run locally.
• Complex generation runs in the cloud.

If the network drops, the system gracefully degrades into a reduced-capability local mode.

Regardless of mode, the technical requirements do not change:

versioning, strict schemas, a regular golden-set evaluation cycle, and a reliable rollback path.

A helpful micro-checklist:

• Is offline mode required?
• Can the device handle RAM/GPU needs?
• Is there an update channel for the model?
• Are golden tests executed regularly?
• Is a fallback or rollback always available?

5.7 A Lightweight 14-Day Start

A minimal plan for teams that need to get to stable production quickly:

Day 1–2: Prompts in Git with prompt_id and prompt_hash

Day 3–4: JSON Schema plus validator and a feature flag

Day 5–7: Build a 20–50 case golden set

Day 8–10: Logging with CSV/SQLite and a simple dashboard

Day 11–14: Shadow test and a rollback checklist

This alone puts you ahead of most early-stage teams.

5.8 Practical Substitutions on the Mini Level

You don’t need enterprise infrastructure to be disciplined:

Observability → CSV files + Google Sheets

LLMOps → YAML plus GitHub Actions

Guardrails → regex + JSON Schema

RAG → a small curated index updated manually

The principle: small but explicit beats complex but implicit.

5.9 Summary

The framework reduces the entire problem to three essentials:

1. Versioning
2. Evaluation
3. Fast rollback

Everything else — complexity, governance, scale — evolves from these core practices.

If you follow the ladder from Mini → Mid → Enterprise, your system grows in discipline and safety only as your real needs grow. The objective is not heavy infrastructure.

It is structured, sustainable evolution.

6. AI Control Plane v0.1: A Practical Skeleton for Any Team

In the previous chapter we defined three maturity levels — Mini, Mid, and Enterprise. But even at the smallest scale a team needs a minimal governing layer, something that turns LLM development from a sequence of disconnected PoCs into a predictable and controllable process.

That minimal layer is the AI Control Plane v0.1.

It does not require a large platform or a heavy budget. A small team of two to five people can implement it with Git, a few scripts, some lightweight roles, and a handful of repeatable rituals. What follows is the essential structure a team needs if it wants to build LLM features intentionally rather than hopefully.

6.1 Core Invariants: What Breaks Without Them

LLM systems evolve quickly, but certain foundations never change. These invariants are what prevent teams from losing control as soon as the system encounters drift, variability or model updates.

1. Full versioning across the system

Everything must have a version:

models, prompts, agents, orchestration flows, indexes, embedders, RAG configs, policies.

Without versioning there is no reproducibility, no rollback, and no way to isolate drift.

2. Evaluation gates for every change

Before anything goes to production — a prompt change, a new index, a new agent step — the team must run a golden set and compare accuracy, completeness, cost, and safety signals.

No change should pass without positive evidence.

3. Observability as a requirement, not a luxury

Each request must carry a trace:

prompt hash, model version, index version, RAG sources, cost, latency, fallback information, schema validation result.

Without these attributes it is impossible to understand why the system behaved differently today than yesterday.

4. Provenance attached to every answer

An LLM output is not “just text.” It is an artifact that must include:

sources consulted, model versions, prompt hash, and evidence that it passed policy checks.

This is essential in finance, healthcare, insurance, legal workflows, and any environment where answers must be auditable.

5. Policy-as-code

Rules such as PII filters, JSON schemas, source allowlists and tone restrictions must live in code, be versioned, undergo review, and run automatically.

Without enforceable policies, no LLM output is trustworthy.

These invariants hold at every maturity level. They are the backbone of predictable LLM development.

6.2 Minimal Processes: Deploying AI-CP in One or Two Sprints

The AI Control Plane does not have to start as a platform. A minimal version can be implemented in two to four weeks by a small team.

1. Git as the single source of truth

The repository should contain:

• prompts/
• agents/
• flows/
• rag-config/
• schemas/
• eval/
• release-manifests/

This alone removes the majority of chaos.

2. Lightweight scripts or a simple CLI

Small utilities should allow the team to:

• run golden sets
• validate schemas
• produce release artifacts
• trigger shadow tests
• collect metrics

With this, LLM development begins to resemble real engineering rather than guesswork.

3. ADRs (Architectural Decision Records)

Every important change must carry a short ADR:

• why a new model was adopted
• why a prompt structure changed
• why a new tool was added to an agent

These documents become invaluable after several months of evolution.

4. Simple release rituals

For Mini/Mid teams, a release is a short procedure:

• run the golden set
• check the cost report
• validate schemas
• update the manifest
• enable the feature flag

This creates predictable, low-drama releases.

5. A single log file

Even SQLite or a CSV file with structured logs is enough to create basic observability in small teams.

6.3 Control Plane Artifacts: What Every Team Must Maintain

AI-CP v0.1 is built on a small but essential set of artifacts.

1. Prompt registry

For each prompt:

• prompt_id
• prompt_hash
• version
• author
• change date
• test cases
• intended use
• dependencies

This turns prompts into engineered components.

2. Golden sets

Three types:

• smoke tests
• full regression sets
• sensitive or compliance-critical cases

Without these categories evaluation becomes unfocused and slow.[8]

3. Release checklist

A concrete list of 10–15 steps, including:

• golden-set execution
• schema validation
• version update in the registry
• cost check
• fallback testing
• ADR update
• feature-flag activation

A checklist is where discipline becomes operational.

4. Agent and flow registry

Each agent and flow must record:

• structure
• dependencies
• policies
• expected outputs
• known failure modes
• examples

This helps both debugging and onboarding.

5. RAG registry

Includes:

• index version
• embedder version
• build date
• recall and precision
• 30-day analysis

RAG is a moving source of truth. Treat it as one.

6.4 Roles: Small Team, Clear Ownership

These roles do not require full-time staffing. One person can cover multiple roles. What matters is that responsibilities are explicitly assigned — not assumed.

1. Prompt Steward

Owns:

• prompt versioning
• review of wording
• prompt structure
• test cases
• documentation

Essentially the librarian of linguistic logic.

2. Eval Owner

Owns:

• golden sets
• metrics
• regular evaluations
• drift monitoring
• quality reports

This is one of the rarest and most valuable roles in actual LLM projects.

3. AI Reliability Engineer (even 0.25 FTE is useful)

Owns:

• validation, retry, fallback
• schema checks
• observability
• alerts
• degradation logic

This role keeps failures controlled rather than explosive.

4. PM/Delivery Owner

Owns:

• Definition of Ready and Done for LLM features
• release rituals
• feature flags
• SLA management
• prioritization of golden sets
• regular retrospectives on model behavior

This role connects engineering discipline with business priorities.

6.5 How AI-CP Fits into DevOps and PMO Workflows

The AI Control Plane does not replace existing processes. It attaches naturally to DevOps, QA, PMO and security without creating a parallel universe.

1. DevOps

• Git becomes the registry
• CI runs evaluations before merges
• CD handles shadow and canary deployments
• Monitoring sends drift, latency, and cost alerts
• Logs store prompt_hash and model versions

2. QA

• Golden sets join the test plan
• RAG evaluation enters smoke and regression suites
• Prompt tests become part of unit and integration tests

3. PMO

• Clear DoR and DoD for LLM features
• Risk assessment covers drift, hallucination, compliance
• Release checklists join standard procedures
• Regular reviews of quality metrics

4. Security & Compliance

• Policy-as-code lives in a single repo
• PII filters are part of release rituals
• RBAC controls access to prompts and models

This makes LLM governance predictable instead of reactive.

6.6 Summary

AI Control Plane v0.1 is not about heavy infrastructure. It is about discipline, clarity and operational control.

A team that implements this minimal version gains:

• predictable releases
• controlled quality
• explainability and audit trails
• fewer production fires
• more stability under stochastic behavior

Even a small team can deploy this framework in two sprints and operate LLM systems with the same rigor as traditional software — without the illusion of determinism, and without the chaos of ad-hoc experiments.

The next chapter will examine real-world failure modes, anti-patterns, and how to avoid them when LLM systems scale.

7. Typical Failures, Anti-Patterns, and How to Prevent Them

LLM systems rarely fail in one clean place. They fail in the seams, where logic is spread across prompts, agents, orchestration layers, RAG pipelines, caches, schemas, and feedback loops. The patterns are so consistent that you can often diagnose the root cause before reading a single line of code.

This chapter walks through the failure modes that appear again and again in teams without a controlled architecture.

7.1 Hallucinations — invented facts and confident nonsense

What it looks like The model fabricates facts, citations, policies, or explanations that never appeared in the context.

Why it happens LLMs are statistical systems, not factual ones. RAG may surface irrelevant fragments. Prompts may contradict the provided sources. And when there is no verification layer, the system accepts whatever the model says.

How to prevent it Golden sets with factual checks. A strict rule that the model must rely only on supplied sources. Schema validation in strict mode. Entailment-based checks for truthfulness. Small, unambiguous prompts that reduce interpretive drift.

7.2 Error cascades — one incorrect step derails the entire system

What it looks like A small error early in a workflow corrupts everything that follows. A misread fact leads to the wrong tool call, which corrupts the state, which produces a misleading final result.

Why it happens Logic is distributed across several layers. Agents improvise instead of executing defined steps. Orchestration doesn’t validate intermediate artifacts.

How to prevent it Modular flows where each step does one job. JSON validation at every stage. Fail-fast behavior instead of optimistic retries. Audit trails that show exactly where the chain went wrong.

7.3 Prompt drift — behavior changes even when code does not

What it looks like A prompt that used to produce a stable JSON structure suddenly returns different formatting, different casing, or a markdown wrapper. Nothing changed in the code, yet the output shifts.

Why it happens Model updates. Changes in RAG content or embedding models. Uncontrolled context. Unreviewed prompt edits.

How to prevent it Versioned prompts with prompt_id and prompt_hash. Regular golden tests. Unified output schemas. Short prompts with no embedded business logic. All prompt changes routed through a controlled configuration channel.

7.4 State loss — the model forgets what it already did

What it looks like The model contradicts itself, repeats steps, or drops intermediate results.

Why it happens LLMs are not stateful systems. Context windows are unmanaged or overloaded. The orchestrator relies on the model to “remember” previous steps.

How to prevent it Maintain explicit state outside the model. Track context_version and validate transitions. Split complex flows into independent segments. Check consistency between steps instead of assuming continuity.

7.5 Cost runaway — costs rise even when traffic does not

What it looks like Costs spike unexpectedly. Budgets drift without any growth in usage.

Why it happens Bloated RAG indexes create unnecessary context. Agents call models for trivial tasks. Context windows grow silently. A feature switches to a more expensive model without safeguards.

How to prevent it Budgets defined at agent and feature level. Context and top-k limits. Full cost tracing inside logs. Caching of model outputs and RAG results. A cost review before every release.

7.6 Privacy leaks — sensitive data appears in responses

What it looks like The model surfaces another user’s data, private documents or PII.

Why it happens No PII filtering. RAG indexes mix unrelated sources. Agents operate without isolation. Prompts are edited informally.

How to prevent it Policy-as-code including PII scrubbers and deny lists. Index isolation per project or per user group. Final output validation for PII patterns. Strict RBAC. Logging of all RAG source usage.

7.7 Summary

These failure modes have a common origin: variability is inherent to LLMs. When a system lacks versioning, golden sets, output contracts, modularity, policy-as-code, observability, controlled RAG, and visible state, instability is inevitable.

Stability comes not from “a better model” but from engineering discipline and a governed architecture. LLMs do not reward improvisation. They reward controlled, visible, versioned, auditable behavior.

The AI Control Plane is the mechanism that makes that possible.

8. Culture and Mindset: Why Architecture Alone Is Not Enough

Even the most robust technical architecture collapses in teams that lack the right culture. LLM systems don’t fail because of weak models or imperfect prompts. They fail where teams refuse to adapt their mindset: how they plan, how they manage uncertainty, how they coordinate work, and how they treat language-driven logic as a first-class part of the system.

Technology shapes the architecture, but culture determines whether the architecture survives.

8.1 Three disciplines, not one: prompt engineering, RAG, orchestration

Teams often assume LLM work is a single skill. In practice it spans three distinct professions.

Prompt engineering requires precision with language: structure, framing, ambiguity management, and the ability to control linguistic behavior without overconstraining it.

RAG demands good information architecture: relevance, indexing quality, document curation, and awareness of semantic drift. A perfect prompt cannot fix a weak knowledge base.

Orchestration is full-stack systems thinking: state management, dependencies, invariants, error handling, timing, and recovery. This is where stochastic logic meets deterministic infrastructure.

Treating these as one job leads to brittle systems and exhausted engineers. Treating them as distinct disciplines creates clarity and ownership.

8.2 The cross-functional LLM team: Dev + PM + AI

Successful LLM work is not “AI work.” It is joint work.

A Product Manager or Product Owner defines quality invariants, owns ADRs, and translates business constraints into architectural ones.

A Prompt Steward maintains prompt versions, structures, usage rules, and the associated golden sets.

A backend or orchestration engineer builds state machines, pipelines, and RAG integrations while ensuring visibility into cost, latency, and provenance.

An Eval Owner runs the tests, reads the regressions, and produces the quality reports that inform decision making.

This cross-functional pattern is what makes LLM features predictable and improvable. Without it, teams drift into heroism or chaos.

8.3 The architect as conductor, not controller

The architect’s role changes in LLM systems.

Instead of controlling every decision, the architect becomes the conductor who aligns prompts, agents, and flows so they follow the same invariants: output format, state transitions, versioning rules, evaluation gates, risk boundaries.

The job is no longer to polish components in isolation but to ensure that the entire ensemble moves in sync, especially as models drift and behaviors shift.

The architect owns the system’s coherence, not its micromanagement.

8.4 Roles, rituals, and a new Definition of Done

LLM development needs its own Definition of Done.

A feature is not “done” when it runs.

It is done when:

• prompt_hash is recorded
• JSON-schema passes strict validation
• the golden set shows no regressions
• cost fits within budget
• provenance is logged
• fallback behavior is defined
• rollback can be executed immediately

These are not extras. They are the minimum bar for shipping language-driven functionality into a world where drift and variability are guaranteed.

Rituals support this discipline.

• A weekly LLM standup to surface drift, anomalies, and regression signals.
• A monthly retrospective to refine processes and invariants.
• An evaluation day every two or three weeks to run extended tests and refresh the golden sets.

The purpose is not bureaucracy. It is stability.

9. Conclusions and Next Steps

LLMs introduce a fundamental shift. Systems become adaptive, context-driven, probabilistic. Reliability is no longer achieved by forcing determinism. It comes from governance, process, versioning, evaluation, and clear contracts. An “uncertainty-aware architecture” accepts drift as a constant and builds the guardrails around it: versioned prompts and models, evaluation gates, strict output schemas, observability, provenance, and fast rollback.

Framework v0.1 offers a minimal scaffold for this. It defines a set of invariants that apply at any scale, a maturity path from Mini to Mid to Enterprise, the essential roles and artifacts, and an AI Control Plane that sits above MCP/SDK to manage releases, policies, costs, SLAs, and drift. It is intentionally lightweight at the start and scales only when the risk and scope justify it.

In practice, dependable LLM features come from discipline: treat prompts and indexes as versioned code, gate releases with golden sets, enforce JSON Schemas, trace every request end-to-end, track costs per agent and per flow, and be ready to roll back within minutes. This turns stochastic behavior into predictable delivery.[5][6]

Next steps:

• Set up the invariants: prompt_hash, model and index versions, JSON Schema validation, a minimal golden set, and a clear rollback path
• Choose your level and commit to its release rituals: begin with Mini, then move toward Mid and Enterprise as the signals appear
• Establish the basics of AI-CP v0.1: registries, eval gates, observability, policy-as-code, and cost budgets
• Share battle scars, metrics, and questions — they help evolve this framework toward v0.2

Feedback and demand signal:

• If the framework resonates, leave a short comment with your use cases
• If you have a question or a “battle scar,” share it — it shapes the roadmap
• If you’re interested in a pilot or conversation, say so in the comments

Author

Vitalii Oborskyi — PMO & Delivery Head. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vitaliioborskyi/