Proposal: agentic, governance-first evolution of the Information Assistant template (AIA)

[MarcoPolo483]

Hi all,

I've spent the last few months building a proposed next-generation rewrite of the Information Assistant template, published as a working repository for review:

https://github.com/eva-foundry/PubSec-Agentic-InfoAsst

It's called AIA (Agentic Information Assistant) and is framed as a refactor of IA that implements the concepts of The Agentic State (Ilves, Kilian, Parazzoli, Peixoto, Velsberg — Tallinn Digital Summit, 2025). It keeps the IA core — "chat with your own data" over Azure AI Search + Azure OpenAI — and rebuilds it around:

A ReAct-style agentic planner with a governed tool registry (every tool carries a classification ceiling, residency, language support, and HITL flag).
Responsible-AI gates (advisory vs decision-informing outputs; mandatory HITL on decision-informing).
Explainable responses: retrieval path, reasoning trace, negative evidence, source freshness, behavioural fingerprint on every answer.
Multi-language (EN/FR supported) operation with translation as a first-class tool.
FinOps cost attribution wired through APIM with per-workspace cost centres.
A source-authority classifier + conflict resolver for multi-source disagreements.
The README has a table of 13 screenshots covering the full user journey (landing → chat with citations → admin → FinOps/AIOps/LiveOps/DevOps/compliance/red-team), captured via Playwright. Agentic-State-Vision.md maps the architecture to the paper's 12-layer model. AIA-Design-Principles-Beyond-Agentic-State.md captures the architectural gaps the paper leaves open.

What I'm asking: is the maintainer team interested in treating this as a proposal for an IA v2, or for a parallel "agentic" branch of the template? I don't expect a 500-file PR to be reviewable as-is — if there's interest, I'd break it into a sequence of scoped PRs (e.g., provenance/citation layer first, then guardrails, then the planner) with an RFC-style issue up front.

If this is out of scope for the template's direction, a "not for us, but good luck" is a valid response and appreciated.

Thanks,
Marco