1989 · EOR and Tutor
An Auburn master's project, Establish, Organize, Represent, included Tutor, a structured-questioning subsystem in the lineage of the later method.
Evidence and status
What the record supports—and what is not yet claimed.
Knowledge Harvesting has a long history of application. Its present challenge is to document what can be transferred, independently applied, and evaluated with appropriate fidelity.
A concise lineage
From structured inquiry to an AI-supported protocol.
1992 · LearnerFirst
The work continued in software and learning-while-doing applications that used structured inquiry to support performance.
Mid-1990s onward · Knowledge Harvesting in practice
The method developed through elicitation and knowledge-transfer work across varied organizations, roles, and domains.
Late 2022 onward · AI retooling
Generative AI created a new implementation surface for structured questioning, organization, and reflection. It did not erase the need for expert review or practitioner judgment.
Current work · transfer and validation
The method, protocol, and instruments are being separated clearly so another practitioner can test what travels and where additional guidance is required.
Current status
Different stages carry different labels.
Demonstrated
Established Knowledge Harvesting practice. The method has a decades-long history of development and application. The public evidence base is still being organized.
Available now
A public foundation. The method, protocol boundaries, safeguards, evidence limits, and current status can be read and reviewed on this site.
In development
The transferable protocol and 96. Practitioner materials, elicitation agents, orchestration, safeguards, and review criteria are being completed and aligned.
Seeking review
Independent practitioner application. The method has not yet been publicly demonstrated as independently transferable using only the intended practitioner package.
Proposed
Training, certification, partner licensing, charter structures, and formal standards. These are not active public programs or available offerings.
Evidence by question
Different claims require different evidence.
Has the method been used?
Demonstrated. The method has a documented history of development and field application.
Can it elicit useful material?
Demonstrated in prior practice. Public examples and historical applications still need clearer organization without exposing confidential material.
Can another practitioner apply it independently?
Seeking review. This requires a bounded second-practitioner test using only the materials intended for future practitioners.
Does the AI-enabled protocol scale with fidelity?
In development. Repeatability, consistent outputs, review criteria, and independent practitioner use must be observed before a broad scale claim is warranted.
Demonstrated application is not the same as independent transfer. Scale is a validation question, not a slogan; a future claim should be supported by transferable instructions, independent use, explicit quality criteria, and evidence from application.
Participation status
External practitioner review is not yet open.
When it opens, participation will begin with bounded feedback, second-practitioner testing, and conversations about defined institutional relevance—not with premature membership, certification, or endorsement.
A second practitioner should receive only the materials intended for future use. Every point where additional guidance is required becomes evidence of a missing instruction, example, safeguard, decision rule, or tool.
A dedicated institutional contact route will be added before external review opens.
Documented sources
Claims should leave evidence that others can inspect.
The public record should connect each material claim to dated sources, selected publications, compact case narratives, and the validation criteria used for that claim.
Those references are being organized. Until they are published here, historical descriptions should be read as development context rather than independent validation.