Surity360 · Whitepaper

The Ontology-First Difference

Why a versioned ontology — not a data warehouse with a dashboard — is the architecture that survives Australian advice scrutiny.

For: CTOs, CIOs, compliance directors and acquirer due-diligence teams · ~10 pages

Adviser-tech platforms split cleanly into feed-first warehouses (which answer “what is the portfolio”) and ontology-first evidence graphs (which answer “does the file evidence that the §961B standard was met for the advice that was given”). This paper makes the engineering case for the second architecture from canonical software-engineering doctrine — Domain-Driven Design (Evans), DRY with the Rule of Three, Open / Closed (Martin), and Producer-Extends / Consumer-Super (Bloch) — which Palantir codified at DevCon5 in March 2026 as the four ontology design principles its government and enterprise platforms are built on. Each principle is mapped to live Surity360 code: Bronze/Silver/Gold layering, the declared MERGE_POLICY, the Ontology Manager publish gate, the CrmProvider abstraction. We list five concrete tests a due-diligence team can run on a 30-day pilot to verify each claim against real client data.

Name * Work email *

Role * Practice name *

AFSL holder / licensee FUA band Active client base

Current tech stack (tick all that apply) Other tools (free text) Investment platforms Comma-separated. Lets us tailor the next paper to platforms you actually use.

Submissions are reviewed by a human. If your practice already matches our research list the link arrives in your inbox immediately; otherwise we approve manually within one business day. We log your IP and user agent for fraud prevention only — no tracking pixels, no third-party analytics. Replies come from pilot@surity.com.au.