Applied Research · AWS Infrastructure · AEC Knowledge Management

Neural Asset Archives. Data Sovereignty.

A proof-of-concept, not a production system: testing whether automated visual-taxonomy generation is feasible under AI-KORP's data-sovereignty conditions — first against a single building, then extended to aerial imagery of six German logistics facilities.

PoCStatus
AWSInfrastructure
99.8%Top Confidence
6Facilities Surveyed
Scroll

Technical Architecture

From Passive Storage
to Active Intelligence

A serverless AWS pipeline intended to move a practice's archive from static storage to an active, queryable resource. Of these stages, only Rekognition has actually been run against real assets so far — manually, through the console, not via an automated trigger.

Amazon S3Object storage for renders, site photos, and material studiesProposed
AWS LambdaEvent-driven logic — serverless, no persistent infrastructureProposed
RekognitionMachine vision: spatial hierarchies, material qualities, label detectionTested · Manual
BedrockPrivate LLM instance to convert labels → design summaries → basket classificationProposed
🪣
S3 — Asset Ingestion
Design assets deposited in a private archive. (Proposed.)
λ
Lambda — Event Trigger
S3 upload fires processing logic — zero persistent server cost. (Proposed.)
👁
Rekognition — Perception
Computer vision extracts labels, spatial hierarchies, material tags. Tested against three assets via the console.
Architecture: 99.8% · Manufacturing: 64.9%
✦
Bedrock — Synthesis
Intended to turn raw labels into a design narrative and basket classification. Not yet run. (Proposed.)
🗄
Neural Archive — Output
Searchable, sovereign, cross-project knowledge base — "the Granary." Designed, not yet built.
◈ Creative
◎ Spatial
◉ Intellectual

Proof of Concept · "Industrial Workshop" Test Content

Machine Perception — Building Scale.

A fictitious "Industrial Workshop" case — built and labelled explicitly as test content, not a real commission — was used to test the pipeline's ability to differentiate brand identity, material texture, and spatial context across three asset types.

AssetWhat Rekognition ReturnedBasket
Brand contextDiagram, Business Card, Text — high-confidence labels for graphic and typographic content.INTELLECTUAL
Spatial context99.8% Architecture and Building, 64.9% Manufacturing on the same image.SPATIAL
Material contextCorrosion, Rust — surface-condition labels on a rusted steel panel.CREATIVE

Rekognition Confidence — Spatial-Context Asset

Architecture
99.8%
Building / Factory
99.8%
Person (Scale Reference)
98.6%
Manufacturing
64.9%
Brand-context test asset
Brand Context — Asset AINTELLECTUAL
Spatial-context test asset — workshop interior
Spatial Context — Asset BSPATIAL
Material-context test asset — rusted steel panel
Material Context — Asset CCREATIVE

Extending to Urban Scale · Six Facilities, Aerial Imagery

The Same Question, from Above.

Publicly available aerial imagery of six German logistics facilities, examined without classifier intervention. Each shows one of three ways brand and architecture fuse into a single visual layer — evidence that any AI system trained on this material would be reading brand as much as structural type.

DHL Parcel Center Osterweddingen, aerial view
DHL OsterweddingenTYPE A · FLEET-CARRIED
PENNY Zentrallager Cologne, aerial view
PENNY Zentrallager CologneTYPE A · FLEET-CARRIED
KiK Logistik GmbH Bönen, oblique aerial view
KiK Logistik BönenTYPE B · ENVELOPE-CARRIED
IKEA Dortmund, oblique aerial view
IKEA DortmundTYPE B · ENVELOPE-CARRIED
EDEKA Logistik Oberhausen, oblique aerial view
EDEKA OberhausenTYPE C · HYBRID
DHL Zustellbasis Münster-Nord, aerial view
DHL Zustellbasis Münster-NordTYPE C · HYBRID

Imagery drawn from Google Earth, used as documentary evidence of an existing, publicly visible urban pattern, captioned per Google's attribution requirements. See the preprint for full methodology and coordinates. Read the Preprint ↗

Governance & Sovereignty

Responsible Architecture
by Design.

All research conducted with personal subscriptions and private hardware. No proprietary client data used. This framework does not claim "EU AI Act compliance" — a legal status only a qualified assessment can confer — its ambition is to stay aligned with the Act's literacy and disclosure logic.

🔒
Data Sovereignty
Personal subscriptions and hardware only · Non-training clause
ACTIVE
⚖️
EU AI Act Alignment
Article 50 disclosure · Human-in-the-loop verification
ALIGNED
🧪
Sandbox Environment
Synthetic or anonymised data · Client IP never exposed
ACTIVE
$ neural-archive --status ✓ S3 bucket: research-archive — PROPOSED ✓ Lambda function: asset-processor — PROPOSED ✓ Rekognition: vision-engine — TESTED, MANUAL ✓ Bedrock: synthesis — PROPOSED ✓ Data sovereignty: NON-TRAINING CLAUSE ACTIVE ✓ EU AI Act: ALIGNED (not "compliant") ✓ Urban-scale survey: 6 facilities, 3 fusion types ⚡ Status: PROOF OF CONCEPT $ _
RESEARCH DISCLOSURE
This is a proof-of-concept study. Building-scale evaluations used synthetic test assets; no client IP was used. The urban-scale aerial imagery documents a publicly observable pattern, not a client project. The pipeline demonstrates feasibility, not a finished capability, under a non-training clause.