nhi.sgit.ai: The Question Splits Into Two Populations
Summary
The brief that scoped this site. The question “how do I give an identity to my agents?” splits into agents you run and agents you rent; the industry's mature answer (attested, short-lived identities from an open standard) serves only the first population, while every agent practitioners actually name belongs to the second — where the honest current practice is to hand over a broad credential and hope. The brief turns that asymmetry into the site's thesis, scopes the research as one concrete scenario per option rather than a vendor list, and sets the participant discipline: method before findings, everything dated, our own gaps published.
Key concepts
- The two populations — agents you run vs. agents you rent — different answers, only one served
- Hand over a credential and hope — the honest description of current practice, taken seriously as a named posture
- The reproducible-test discipline — one scenario, same columns, privileges granted as the differentiating column, dated
- The participant problem — who writes this, method before findings, where our approach loses
Key ideas
- A collection without a position is an archive — the thesis belongs on the front page.
- Vendor lists are worthless and date in weeks; scenarios are comparable, checkable and re-runnable.
- Five concerns get bundled as “identity” (authentication, authorisation, secret storage, audit, lifecycle) and the research should scope to three.
- The measure of success: somebody with four agents and four vaults can read the site and know what to do next — including when the answer is that nothing available does what they want.
On this site
Became this site: the thesis, method, options, collection, and comms structure all follow this brief's build order.