Expanding the state architecture with multi-domain examples, advanced navigation patterns, and production use cases
Introduction
Part 1 introduced the Ping Engine architecture: AFST v0.1 for adaptive reasoning and MindsEye Cards for session persistence. This article expands the framework with real-world examples across multiple domains, advanced navigation patterns, and techniques for managing complex, multi-topic workflows.
The Ping Engine transforms AI conversations from linear exchanges into structured reasoning systems. This part demonstrates how that transformation works in practice.
- Multi-Domain Example: Software Architecture Planning This example shows the Ping Engine managing a complex software design conversation with multiple interconnected topics. Initial Setup [User pastes AFST v0.1]
User: "I'm designing a microservices architecture for an e-commerce platform.
Output length: medium. Style: mixed. Technical depth: advanced."
Session Flow
t0: Initial Domain Creation
Model internally creates:
T1: system_architecture (active)
Dependencies: none yet
Context: e-commerce, microservices pattern
t2: User navigates to specific concern
User: "Focus on the payment service specifically.
I need to handle PCI compliance."
Model response:
The payment service requires careful isolation due to PCI-DSS requirements. Key architectural decisions include:
Service Boundaries
The payment processor should operate as a standalone service with minimal surface area. Direct database access from other services must be prohibited, with all communication flowing through a secure API gateway that enforces token-based authentication.
Data Handling
Sensitive card data never touches your infrastructure directly. Implement tokenization at the edge, where the payment gateway returns tokens that your system stores instead of actual card numbers. This dramatically reduces your compliance scope.
Transaction Flow
Consider implementing the saga pattern for distributed transactions. When a payment fails, your orchestrator needs to trigger compensating transactions across order, inventory, and notification services without exposing payment details beyond the payment service boundary.
Audit Requirements
Every payment operation requires immutable logging with cryptographic integrity. Store these logs in a separate, append-only data store with restricted access and automatic retention policies.
Model internally updates:
T2: payment_service (active, child of T1)
T1: system_architecture (parked)
Dependency: T2 → T1 (payment service is component of overall architecture)
t5: User introduces related concern
User: "What about the order service? It needs to coordinate with payment."
Model response:
The order service acts as the orchestration layer for purchase workflows. Its relationship with the payment service follows a clear pattern:
Request-Response Boundary
Orders initiate payment requests but never receive sensitive data back. The payment service returns transaction IDs and status codes, nothing more. This maintains PCI isolation while enabling order tracking.
State Management
Orders exist in multiple states: PENDING, PAYMENT_PROCESSING, CONFIRMED, FAILED. The order service owns this state machine, but state transitions triggered by payment events arrive through event streams, not synchronous calls. This decoupling prevents cascade failures.
Idempotency
Payment requests from orders must include idempotency keys. If the order service retries due to network issues, the payment service recognizes duplicate requests and returns the original transaction result without charging twice.
Failure Scenarios
When payments fail, the order service needs a decision tree: temporary failures trigger retries with exponential backoff, permanent failures cancel the order and trigger inventory release. Timeout failures require manual review workflows.
Model internally updates:
T3: order_service (active)
T2: payment_service (parked)
Dependency: T3 ↔ T2 (bidirectional coordination)
Relationship: orchestration pattern
t8: User requests comparison
User: "COMPARE: payment_service vs order_service in terms of scaling requirements"
Model response:
The scaling profiles differ fundamentally due to their operational characteristics:
Payment Service Scaling
Payment processing is CPU-bound and stateless once tokens are issued. Horizontal scaling works cleanly because each transaction is independent. However, downstream payment gateway rate limits create an external bottleneck that autoscaling cannot solve. Instead, implement request queuing with circuit breakers that fail fast when the gateway is saturated.
Order Service Scaling
Orders are write-heavy during peak times but read-heavy during normal operation. The challenge is maintaining consistency during high-concurrency order placement. Vertical scaling of the database matters more than horizontal scaling of the service itself. Consider write-through caching for read operations and optimistic locking for inventory checks during order creation.
Key Difference
Payment services scale predictably because they are computationally simple. Order services face scaling complexity from database contention and inventory coordination. Budget more infrastructure budget for order service data layer optimization than for payment service compute resources.
Model internally updates:
Comparison logged: T2 vs T3, dimension: scaling
Pattern detected: user favors architectural tradeoff analysis
t12: User returns to original topic
User: "Back to the overall architecture. How do these services fit
into the deployment model?"
Model response:
The deployment architecture needs to reflect the isolation and scaling patterns already established.
Service Grouping
Deploy payment services in a dedicated cluster with network-level isolation. Order services can share infrastructure with other core services like catalog and cart, but use namespace separation and resource quotas.
Database Strategy
The payment service requires its own database instance, never shared. Order service can use a shared database cluster but with dedicated schemas and connection pools. This balances isolation requirements with infrastructure costs.
Traffic Routing
Implement separate ingress paths for payment operations. Route customer-facing payment UI through a hardened gateway with additional DDoS protection and rate limiting. Internal service-to-service payment calls bypass this gateway and use mutual TLS authentication.
Observability
Payment service metrics require special handling due to PCI logging restrictions. Aggregate and anonymize before sending to central monitoring. Order service metrics can use standard observability patterns without restrictions.
Model internally updates:
T1: system_architecture (active again)
T2, T3: (context maintained, not active)
Revisit count: T1 = 2
Pattern: user explores details then returns to synthesize
- Advanced Pattern: Nested Topic Hierarchies This example demonstrates how the Ping Engine handles deeply nested topic structures. Domain: Climate Science Research User: "I'm researching atmospheric carbon cycles. Output length: long. Style: paragraphs. Technical depth: expert." Topic Tree Evolution: T1: carbon_cycles (root) ├── T2: terrestrial_carbon │ ├── T4: forest_ecosystems │ │ └── T7: mycorrhizal_networks │ └── T5: soil_carbon_storage └── T3: oceanic_carbon ├── T6: phytoplankton_dynamics └── T8: deep_ocean_sequestration Navigation Example: User: "Go deeper on mycorrhizal networks and their role in carbon transfer" Model recognizes:
Current context: T1 → T2 → T4 → T7 (four levels deep)
Parent topics maintained in memory
Ability to reference cross-branch relationships (e.g., connecting T7 to T6 via nutrient cycling)
Depth Management:
The engine prevents context collapse by maintaining breadcrumb trails. When discussing mycorrhizal networks, the model internally remembers:
This topic exists within forest ecosystems
Forest ecosystems are part of terrestrial carbon systems
Terrestrial carbon is one branch of overall carbon cycles
This allows natural transitions like: "How does this compare to carbon transfer in oceanic systems?" and the model correctly navigates from T7 → T3 → T6.
- Pattern: Parallel Topic Streams Sometimes users work on multiple independent topics simultaneously. Domain: Product Development User: "I'm working on three features simultaneously: authentication system, notification pipeline, and analytics dashboard. Treat these as parallel tracks." Model Response: Understood. I'm tracking three parallel development streams: Stream A: Authentication System (T1) Currently at: implementation planning Stream B: Notification Pipeline (T2) Currently at: implementation planning Stream C: Analytics Dashboard (T3) Currently at: implementation planning Work on any stream by saying "Switch to [feature name]" or "Update on notifications" and I'll maintain independent context for each. Usage Pattern: t0: User: "Focus on authentication. I need OAuth2 implementation details." [Model provides auth-specific response, T1 active]
t4: User: "Switch to notifications. What message broker should I use?"
[Model provides notification-specific response, T2 active, T1 parked]
t8: User: "Quick question on auth: should I use JWT or opaque tokens?"
[Model provides auth answer, recognizes this is T1 context,
T2 remains parked but not forgotten]
t10: User: "Back to notifications."
[Model resumes T2 exactly where it left off at t4]
The engine maintains independent state for each stream, preventing context bleed between parallel topics.
- Real Example: Academic Research Session This session demonstrates the Ping Engine managing a literature review workflow. Setup User: "I'm reviewing papers on transformer architectures. Output length: short. Style: bullets. Depth: advanced." Session Transcript t0: Paper 1 Analysis User: "First paper: 'Attention Is All You Need' - Vaswani et al." Model:
Introduces self-attention mechanism as replacement for recurrence
Multi-head attention allows parallel processing of different representation subspaces
Positional encoding compensates for lack of sequential structure
Achieves state-of-art translation results with less training time
Internal state:
T1: attention_mechanisms (created)
Paper reference: Vaswani2017 (logged)
t3: Paper 2 Analysis
User: "Next paper: 'BERT' - Devlin et al."
Model:
Bidirectional training enables deeper context understanding
Masked language modeling trains on context from both directions simultaneously
Pre-training + fine-tuning paradigm proves more effective than training from scratch
Introduces concept of transformer encoders for representation learning
Internal state:
T2: bidirectional_transformers (created)
Dependency: T2 → T1 (BERT builds on attention mechanisms)
Paper reference: Devlin2018 (logged)
t6: Comparison Request
User: "COMPARE: original transformer vs BERT architectural differences"
Model:
Encoder-Decoder vs Encoder-Only: Original uses both for translation, BERT uses only encoder for representation
Training Objective: Transformer trained on next-token prediction, BERT on masked token prediction
Directionality: Transformer attention is causal (can't see future), BERT is bidirectional (sees full context)
Use Case: Transformer designed for generation tasks, BERT designed for understanding tasks
Internal state:
Comparison logged: T1 vs T2
Both topics marked as active (comparison requires dual context)
t10: Deep Dive Request
User: "Explain BERT's masked language modeling in detail"
Model:
Masked language modeling randomly masks 15% of input tokens and trains the model to predict them using bidirectional context. The masking strategy uses three techniques: 80% of the time, replace with [MASK] token; 10% replace with random token; 10% keep original. This prevents the model from learning that [MASK] tokens are special and forces it to maintain representations for all positions. The training objective maximizes the probability of predicting masked tokens given surrounding context from both directions simultaneously.
Internal state:
T2: bidirectional_transformers (drilling deeper)
Sub-topic: MLM_training (implicit, not exposed)
t14: Session Export
User: "EXPORT SESSION STATE"
Model produces MindsEye Card:
[MINDSEYE_OUTPUT_CARD v0.1]
SESSION_ID: research_transformers_001
MODEL: claude-sonnet-4
TEMPLATE_MODE: AFST
START_TIME: t0
END_TIME: t14
[1] TOPIC INDEX
- T1: attention_mechanisms (resolved)
- T2: bidirectional_transformers (active)
[2] CONVERSATIONAL TIME MAP
t0: → T1 (paper: Vaswani2017)
t3: T1 → T2 (paper: Devlin2018)
t6: T1 + T2 (comparison analysis)
t10: T2 (deep dive: MLM)
t14: export requested
[3] TOPIC PATHWAYS
T1 → T2 (dependency: foundational)
T1 ↔ T2 (comparison: architectural)
[4] RULES & PREFERENCES
OUTPUT LENGTH: short
STYLE: bullets
TECH DEPTH: advanced
BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS:
- paper-by-paper sequential analysis
- comparison-oriented thinking
- deep dive on specific mechanisms
[5] TOPIC SNAPSHOTS
T1: attention_mechanisms
summary: Self-attention as core transformer component
key points: multi-head attention, positional encoding, parallel processing
papers: Vaswani2017
reentry_hook: "Continue attention mechanism analysis"
T2: bidirectional_transformers
summary: BERT's architectural innovations over base transformer
key points: bidirectional training, MLM objective, encoder-only design
papers: Devlin2018
reentry_hook: "Resume BERT analysis or explore variants (RoBERTa, ALBERT)"
[6] REENTRY PLAYBOOK
- Paste this card and say: "Resume literature review"
- Suggested next papers: GPT series, T5, or BERT variants
- Recommended comparison: generative vs discriminative transformers
End of MINDSEYE_OUTPUT_CARD v0.1
Pattern: Refinement Cycles
The Ping Engine handles iterative refinement without full rewrites.
Example: Business Strategy Document
User: "Focus on go-to-market strategy for a B2B SaaS product"
Initial Response (t0):
Go-to-market strategy centers on three pillars: target market identification, channel selection, and pricing model. For B2B SaaS, the emphasis should be on product-led growth complemented by enterprise sales for larger accounts.
Refinement 1 (t3):
User: "REFINE: go-to-market with focus on enterprise sales motion specifically"
Updated Response:
Go-to-market strategy centers on three pillars: target market identification, channel selection, and pricing model. For B2B SaaS targeting enterprise accounts, the sales motion requires dedicated account executives with technical solution engineers for pre-sales support. The typical enterprise sales cycle runs 3-9 months and involves multiple stakeholder groups: technical evaluators, procurement teams, and executive sponsors. Build a champion within the technical organization first, then expand to economic buyers.
Note: Model only added the enterprise-specific detail, preserving the original framing.
Refinement 2 (t6):
User: "REFINE: add competitive positioning angle"
Final Response:
Go-to-market strategy centers on three pillars: target market identification, channel selection, and pricing model. For B2B SaaS targeting enterprise accounts, the sales motion requires dedicated account executives with technical solution engineers for pre-sales support. The typical enterprise sales cycle runs 3-9 months and involves multiple stakeholder groups: technical evaluators, procurement teams, and executive sponsors. Build a champion within the technical organization first, then expand to economic buyers.
Competitive positioning should emphasize differentiation on a dimension where incumbents are weak. If competing against legacy on-premise solutions, emphasize deployment speed and operational simplicity. If competing against other SaaS platforms, focus on specific workflow integrations or compliance certifications that create switching costs.
The engine adds each refinement as a delta, maintaining document coherence without wholesale regeneration.Power Commands in Practice
SHOW MAP Example
User: "SHOW MAP"
Model:
Current Topic Map:
system_architecture (root)
├── payment_service [dependencies: PCI compliance, tokenization]
├── order_service [dependencies: payment_service, inventory_service]
└── deployment_architecture [dependencies: payment_service, order_service]
Active: deployment_architecture
Parked: payment_service, order_service
Transitions: 5
Comparisons: 1 (payment vs order scaling)
EXPORT TOPIC Example
User: "EXPORT TOPIC: payment_service"
Model:
Topic Export: payment_service
Summary: Payment processing service with PCI-DSS compliance requirements
Key Decisions:
Tokenization at edge to minimize compliance scope
Saga pattern for distributed transactions
Append-only audit logging with cryptographic integrity
Horizontal scaling with circuit breakers for gateway limits
Dependencies:
Parent: system_architecture
Related: order_service (orchestration coordination)
External: payment gateway (rate limit constraints)
State: parked (last active: t5)
Reentry Hook: "Resume payment service discussion" or "Update payment service architecture"
Common Usage Patterns
Pattern 1: Branching Exploration
User explores multiple sub-topics from a root concept, then synthesizes:
Root → Branch A (explore) → Branch B (explore) → Branch C (explore) → Root (synthesize)
The engine maintains all branch contexts during synthesis.
Pattern 2: Iterative Deepening
User progressively increases depth on a single topic:
T1 (overview) → T1 (intermediate) → T1 (expert) → T1 (edge cases)
Each iteration adds detail without losing prior context.
Pattern 3: Cross-Domain Transfer
User identifies patterns in one domain and applies to another:
T1: biology concept → T2: software concept → COMPARE: structural similarities
The engine recognizes analogical reasoning and maintains both domain contexts.Production Tips
Tip 1: Initialize Early
Paste AFST v0.1 at the very start of a session, before any substantive work. This ensures the engine structures from the beginning.
Tip 2: Be Explicit About Transitions
Say "Focus on X" or "Switch to Y" rather than implicitly shifting topics. Explicit commands help the engine maintain clean boundaries.
Tip 3: Export Regularly
Generate MindsEye Cards at natural breakpoints (end of day, end of phase). These become checkpoints you can return to.
Tip 4: Use Refinement Over Rewriting
When you want to adjust something, say "REFINE: X with Y" instead of regenerating. The engine will delta-update.
Tip 5: Name Your Topics Consistently
If you call something "auth system" in one message and "authentication service" in another, the engine might create separate topics. Use consistent terminology.Future Extensions
The Ping Engine architecture is extensible. Possible enhancements include:
Topic Tagging: Add metadata tags to topics for filtering and search
Dependency Graphs: Export visual graphs of topic relationships
Multi-Session Linking: Connect MindsEye Cards across multiple sessions
Collaborative Mode: Multiple users sharing a topic space
Version Control: Track topic evolution across time with diff capabilities
Conclusion
Part 2 expands the Ping Engine with real-world examples across software architecture, research workflows, business strategy, and academic analysis. The patterns demonstrated—nested hierarchies, parallel streams, refinement cycles, and comparison operations—show how AFST and MindsEye transform AI conversations into structured reasoning systems.
The key insight remains: modern AI needs state architecture, not just more tokens.
The Ping Engine provides that architecture.
Top comments (0)