Comparison · two buyer workflows · one evidence system
Defense AI workflow vs Education AI workflow.
Use this when a buyer is comparing review paths. In both cases, the self-serve API gates the action and retains a sealed evidence record that compliance can inspect.
01 ·
Side-by-side.
Fleet · control context · audience · evidence contract
Fleet under measurementDefense AI workflow: battlestaff, intel cells, mission planning, and decision-support agents
Education AI workflow: K-12 tutor and grader fleets, ambient transcription, district reporting tools
Education AI workflow: K-12 tutor and grader fleets, ambient transcription, district reporting tools
Control contextDefense AI workflow: NIST AI RMF, OMB M-25-21/22, DoW RAI S&IP, CMMC evidence questions, DoW impact-level review planning
Education AI workflow: Title VI, FERPA review context, §504/IDEA, CCSS curriculum alignment
Education AI workflow: Title VI, FERPA review context, §504/IDEA, CCSS curriculum alignment
AudienceDefense AI workflow: program offices, ATO-package owners, JADC2 staff
Education AI workflow: district administrators, equity officers, state superintendents
Education AI workflow: district administrators, equity officers, state superintendents
Reference controlsBoth workflows draw from register 09; the views at /corpus/for/defense and /corpus/for/education frame the references for each audience.
Shared evidence systemThe same gate, route, seal, verify, and meter contract serves both paths. See the API reference.
02 ·
Which review path fits the buyer.
A one-line decision pin per workflow
Defense AI workflow. Pick when the buyer is a U.S. defense program office and the evidence must support authorization, CMMC, or impact-level review.
Education AI workflow. Pick when the buyer is a district or state education agency and the question is civil-rights-shaped (Title VI, §504, IDEA) or curriculum-alignment-shaped (CCSS).
If the question spans both domains, use the same self-serve API path and attach both control contexts to the evidence record. The record contract is shared; sufficiency remains evaluator-specific.