Typed Indeterminacy Engineering: A Practitioner's Design Pattern for Carrying Uncertainty Types Through a Decision Pipeline

Decision systems that operate under uncertainty — LLM-as-judge evaluators, multi-criteria ranking procedures, evidence-fusion pipelines, AI alignment mechanisms, expert-consensus methods — routinely reduce heterogeneous epistemic failure modes to a single scalar of “confidence.” Several established literatures already resist this collapse in pieces: Dempster-Shafer theory separates ignorance from conflicting evidence; the aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty distinction separates irreducible from reducible uncertainty; neutrosophic set theory keeps truth, indeterminacy and falsity as three uncollapsed components; imprecise probability represents indeterminacy as a credal set rather than a point; AGM and Katsuno-Mendelzon belief-change theory distinguish how a belief state should change depending on why it changes; selective prediction, conformal prediction, and learning-to-defer already give a system several ways to act when it should not commit to a point answer. None of these literatures is new, and none of the individual distinctions below is claimed as new. This note states a design pattern connecting them: index (a) a 2×3 type grid — failure mode (ignorance, conflict, falsity) × removability (removable, constitutive) — to (b) which belief-change operation applies to each of the six cells (expansion, question reformulation, update, belief merging, revision, or source discounting), and in turn to (c) which decision-output form applies (a tagged point decision, a set-valued decision, or an escalation). We call this pattern Typed Indeterminacy Engineering (TIE). We report two worked examples from the author's own applied practice — disclosed here as published in a journal family the author edits, hence offered as illustration and not as independent evidence — plus a worked application to Delphi-style consensus methods, before stating plainly what remains conceptual and what an independent research program would need to formalize and test.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-09-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22872948
Primary Topic
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Typed Indeterminacy Engineering: A Practitioner's Design Pattern for Carrying Uncertainty Types Through a Decision Pipeline

Maikel Leyva Vázquez
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
article

Typed Indeterminacy Engineering: A Practitioner's Design Pattern for Carrying Uncertainty Types Through a Decision Pipeline

Maikel Leyva Vázquez
article en

Abstract

Decision systems that operate under uncertainty — LLM-as-judge evaluators, multi-criteria ranking procedures, evidence-fusion pipelines, AI alignment mechanisms, expert-consensus methods — routinely reduce heterogeneous epistemic failure modes to a single scalar of “confidence.” Several established literatures already resist this collapse in pieces: Dempster-Shafer theory separates ignorance from conflicting evidence; the aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty distinction separates irreducible from reducible uncertainty; neutrosophic set theory keeps truth, indeterminacy and falsity as three uncollapsed components; imprecise probability represents indeterminacy as a credal set rather than a point; AGM and Katsuno-Mendelzon belief-change theory distinguish how a belief state should change depending on why it changes; selective prediction, conformal prediction, and learning-to-defer already give a system several ways to act when it should not commit to a point answer. None of these literatures is new, and none of the individual distinctions below is claimed as new. This note states a design pattern connecting them: index (a) a 2×3 type grid — failure mode (ignorance, conflict, falsity) × removability (removable, constitutive) — to (b) which belief-change operation applies to each of the six cells (expansion, question reformulation, update, belief merging, revision, or source discounting), and in turn to (c) which decision-output form applies (a tagged point decision, a set-valued decision, or an escalation). We call this pattern Typed Indeterminacy Engineering (TIE). We report two worked examples from the author's own applied practice — disclosed here as published in a journal family the author edits, hence offered as illustration and not as independent evidence — plus a worked application to Delphi-style consensus methods, before stating plainly what remains conceptual and what an independent research program would need to formalize and test.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
University of Guayaquil (EC), Universidad Bernardo O'Higgins (CL), Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.