TUI as corpus producer
The TUI-as-Corpus-Producer pattern designates the operator terminal interface (slm-cli) as a primary source of high-quality training data for the per-tenant model adapter. Every interaction with the Doorman through this interface is a curated corpus contribution.
Correction (2026-08-02, verified against canonical origin/main): slm-cli is
not a real component name — a corpus-wide grep for slm-cli/slm_cli across every
.rs/.toml file in canonical returns zero hits. The real service-slm/crates/ set
is adapter-hub, slm-core, slm-doorman-server, slm-doorman, slm-mcp-server —
no CLI/TUI crate. The real operator-facing SLM surface is app-console-slm (a real
Active crate, "SlmCartridge (F9); Doorman health dashboard + entity count," per this
archive's own project registry). This invented name is also used, with equal
confidence, in Tier 0 customer-side sovereign specialist — a corpus-wide sweep
for other slm-cli occurrences is worth doing in a future pass. The underlying
corpus-production concept described in this article is plausible; only the component
name is fabricated. Flagged, not resolved.
Why terminal interactions are high-quality training data
Three properties distinguish system administration and IT-support interactions from general training data:
Verifiable ground truth. When an operator follows AI advice — running a suggested command, applying a proposed configuration change — the system either recovers or it does not. Other domains such as creative writing or strategic reasoning lack this immediate-feedback property. IT-support has it by default. The operator knows immediately whether the response was correct.
Narrow domain. Archive operations, system conventions, and customer-specific workflow vocabulary form a bounded command set and failure-mode space. Models train more efficiently on bounded domains than on general corpora because the signal-to-noise ratio is higher.
Domain-expert feedback. The operator issuing a verdict is the person who knows whether the response was correct — not a proxy labeler separated from the actual work. Published reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback literature consistently reports that high-quality verdict-signed interaction tuples train an order of magnitude more efficiently than observation-only tuples. 1
The /feedback mechanism
After every assistant response in the TUI, the operator is offered three explicit verdicts:
Good. The response was correct and useful. The tuple is flagged as a positive direct preference optimisation example.
Refine. The response was close but needed adjustment. The operator provides a correction inline; the tuple captures the response-and-refinement pair as training signal.
Bad. The response was wrong. The tuple is flagged as a negative direct preference optimisation example.
If the operator dismisses without providing a verdict, the tuple is captured as unsigned and contributes to supervised fine-tuning but not to direct preference optimisation.
Adapter quality budget
Published fine-tuning literature suggests 200 to 500 high-quality verdict-signed interactions are sufficient for a first adapter training cycle in a narrow domain. 2 The platform's intended sequence for each tenant is: accumulate signed interactions from dogfood operations, train the first per-tenant adapter via the LoRA training pipeline, apply a validation quality gate, and promote the adapter to the deployment. Each subsequent training cycle incorporates additional interactions, progressively tuning the adapter to the customer's specific environment — their systemd units, their seed taxonomy, their workflow vocabulary.
Per-tenant adapter ownership
The corpus produced by a customer's operators trains that customer's adapter, not a general adapter. Per the Customer-owned graph IP convention, the trained adapter weights are the customer's property. The platform distributes the model architecture and the training pipeline; the customer retains the trained adapter that results.
Verdict capture discipline
Some terminal sessions should not contribute to the training corpus: test sessions initiated with a no-corpus flag, sessions interrupted by unavailable tiers before completion, and sessions using forced-tier debug mode are audit-logged but excluded from normal training data. The boundary between operational corpus and test corpus is enforced at the Doorman's verdict intake endpoint.
See also
- Single-boundary compute discipline — the TUI never calls inference tiers directly; all calls route through the Doorman
- Customer-owned graph IP — per-tenant adapter weights are the customer's intellectual property
- Knowledge-graph-grounded apprenticeship — training tuples carry graph context when the Doorman grounds the request
-
Rafailov, R. et al. 'Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model.' NeurIPS, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290 ↩
-
Zhou, C. et al. 'LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment.' NeurIPS, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11206 ↩