Thanh Luong Tuan

Thanh Luong Tuan, Abhijit Sanyal

Pre-deployment verification of enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) agents remains a critical gap between large language model (LLM) capability benchmarking and production deployment. Post-deployment monitoring, human-in-the-loop controls, and prompt-level guardrails offer limited assurance once an agent is operating in production. We propose an ontology-grounded verification framework combining three components: an Agent Operational Envelope formalizing the certification space across permissions, domain constraints, safety properties, governance rules, and autonomy levels; an ontology-to-scenario generation pipeline that derives regulatory, operational, and adversarial test scenarios automatically; and a Trust Certificate carrying a machine-verifiable attestation with graduated deployment verdicts (Approved, Conditional, Rejected). A controlled pilot across four regulated industries (Fintech, Banking, Insurance, and Healthcare), instantiated as five industry-by-regulatory-regime cells across the United States and Vietnam, generated 1,800 scenarios evaluated against 125 primary-source regulatory requirements and 25 injected faults. Ontology-grounded generation (G4) achieved 48.3% regulatory coverage versus 33.1% for the persona-based baseline (corrected p = .0006) and the highest domain specificity (4.77/5.0; p = 2e-6). The coverage advantage over baseline and retrieval-augmented prompting was not robust after Bonferroni correction. Cross-validation across three LLM families (Claude Sonnet 4, Qwen 2.5 72B, Gemma 4 26B; 5,400 total scenarios) replicated the persona-versus-ontology pattern. The results establish ontology-grounded scenario generation as a credible complement to persona-based test suites for regulatory-intensive domains.

Thanh Luong Tuan

Enterprise multi-agent systems increasingly expose multiple coordination patterns, but deployments often lack evidence for when to use consensus, debate, synthesis, or a simpler single-agent workflow. This paper evaluates whether coordination strategy should be selected dynamically by problem class rather than fixed globally. We run a frozen matrix of 30 enterprise tasks spanning six industries, five problem classes, four execution conditions, three replications per cell, and four model arms: qwen_local, sonnet, gemma_openrouter, and an auxiliary openai cloud-validation arm. All 1,440 generated outputs are judged by a fixed Sonnet rubric. The main finding is bounded and operationally useful, but it is not the original strict H1. The pre-registered exact-winner/CI criterion is not supported: exact winner identity is unstable across model arms, and several predicted strategies are close to, but not above, the best observed alternative. A weaker near-best routing claim is strongly supported. In every pre-registered model arm and problem class, and again in the auxiliary OpenAI validation arm, the predicted strategy is within 0.10 quality-score points of the best observed condition. Structured compliance verification is the clearest exception to the original mapping: all arms favor single_agent rather than consensus. A pre-registered Kendall's W test finds no reliable difference between Vietnamese-domain and English-domain tasks in how consistently the four coordination conditions are ranked (mean W of 0.20 in both strata; signed-rank p = .85), so H2 is not supported. We conclude that enterprise coordination policy should use dynamic routing as a calibrated default, not as a deterministic winner-selection law.

Thanh Luong Tuan

Enterprise adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) is constrained by hallucination, domain drift, and the inability to enforce regulatory compliance at the reasoning level. We present a neurosymbolic architecture implemented within the Foundation AgenticOS (FAOS) platform that addresses these limitations through ontology-constrained neural reasoning. Our approach introduces a three-layer ontological framework--Role, Domain, and Interaction ontologies--that provides formal semantic grounding for LLM-based enterprise agents. We formalize the concept of asymmetric neurosymbolic coupling, wherein symbolic ontological knowledge constrains agent inputs (context assembly, tool discovery, governance thresholds) while proposing mechanisms for extending this coupling to constrain agent outputs (response validation, reasoning verification, compliance checking). We evaluate the architecture through a controlled experiment (600 runs across five industries: FinTech, Insurance, Healthcare, Vietnamese Banking, and Vietnamese Insurance), finding that ontology-coupled agents significantly outperform ungrounded agents on Metric Accuracy (p < .001, W = .460), Regulatory Compliance (p = .003, W = .318), and Role Consistency (p < .001, W = .614), with improvements greatest where LLM parametric knowledge is weakest--particularly in Vietnam-localized domains. Our contributions include: (1) a formal three-layer enterprise ontology model, (2) a taxonomy of neurosymbolic coupling patterns, (3) ontology-constrained tool discovery via SQL-pushdown scoring, (4) a proposed framework for output-side ontological validation, (5) empirical evidence for the inverse parametric knowledge effect that ontological grounding value is inversely proportional to LLM training data coverage of the domain, and (6) a production system serving 21 industry verticals with 650+ agents.