> Most organisations don't know where their knowledge gaps are until something breaks. This act traces the trail before that happens. Two moves: > 1. discover where knowledge flows and goes cold > 2. then name who holds it informally and who is on the hook for none of it. ^purpose The act runs an [[Empathy mapping|empathy map]] twice over the same concrete case - once for a person doing the work, once for an [[AI agent|agent]] doing it. The twin run surfaces a shared root cause without a lecture: humans and agents fail on the same missing knowledge, though the failures look different (a person asks twice, an agent hallucinates). After the case is traced, the room draws the actual communication network rather than the org chart, and the question of who owns any of it is asked out loud. Decision rationale, in particular, disappears faster than decisions: the outcome survives in a ticket; the *why* is already gone. ^method The act draws on knowledge audit practice, organisational network analysis, and after-action review. Two distinctions set it apart: AI agents are treated as first-class knowledge consumers alongside people, and the orientation is investigative - toward what is missing, not a catalogue of what exists. **You leave with:** - A named pain set - the specific knowledge failures your organisation is paying for today - A connection map - who holds what, who the informal brokers are, where the [[Silo|silos]] are - The ownership question in the open - who in leadership is on the hook for these connections existing ^outcomes ## Examples of pains surfaced here 1. [[Second brain example - personal notes|Second brain (personal notes)]] ![[Second brain example - personal notes#^trail-line]] 2. [[Shared second brain example - ADR log|Shared second brain (ADR log)]] ![[Shared second brain example - ADR log#^trail-line]]