The weakest domain in a consequential path is the maturity that counts.
Assess maturity per application by the responsibilities it can govern across identity, context, policy, state, human judgment, external effects, evidence, and operations.
Start with the application responsibility this page owns.
Connect the concept to evidence and implementation.
Two rules decide whether this model is useful
The model keeps maturity grounded in what an application can actually govern when the outcome matters.
Weakest domain
The weakest consequential responsibility sets the practical maturity of the application path.
Platform purchase is not maturity
Buying infrastructure does not prove that a specific application path governs identity, context, policy, state, and evidence.
Per application
Assess maturity on each consequential application, not at the enterprise-logo level.
Evidence required
A maturity claim should be backed by observable artifacts, tests, and operating proof.
Measure maturity by application responsibility
The levels move from experiments to governed, explainable, scalable application operation.
Level 1 - Prompt Experiments
Individual use cases rely on ad hoc prompts or assistants.
Level 2 - Assisted Workflows
AI supports work, but application responsibilities remain fragmented.
Level 3 - Governed Application Path
Identity, context, policy, state, and review begin to stay connected.
Level 4 - Explainable Operation
Evidence, lineage, replay, and controlled actions support operational accountability.
Level 5 - Scaled Application Factory
Teams can build repeated governed applications without rebuilding core responsibilities.
Level 6 - Adaptive Operating Model
Maturity evidence, economics, quality, and governance guide continual expansion.
Assess the application, not the enterprise logo.
Use the maturity model to identify which responsibility limits a real AI application path and what evidence would move it forward.