The Reference Behind the Decision.
EPAI · Embodied Physical Agentic Intelligence · B2AGI’s proposed framework
Capital · Security · Global Cooperation
Embodied AI, physical AI and agentic AI have arrived on the same desk.
Bring a question. Bring a draft. B2AGI adds evidence, review and a way forward.
The concept begins with the decision at hand, then brings relevant evidence, options and open items into view.
A review can mark what to keep, change or add, with the reasoning and supporting references beside it.
Judgment, options and a way forward. For drafts, what to keep, what to change, and why. Your principal’s questions, with basis and open items.
The proposed format records the scope, references and limits of a review. Issuance is not yet available in this concept.
Concept preview · your question stays in this browser tab; it is not sent or analyzed. The walkthrough uses a fixed warehouse case.
Briefing roomWhat do you need to walk out with today?
Start with a question, or bring the draft you already have.
Bring your AI draft
This screen shows a sample review of an AI-generated draft, including what to keep, change or add.
Shown for this walkthrough · upload is disabled
“We received proposals from an embodied AI, a physical AI and an agentic AI company. Are they competitors, or do we need all three for the same warehouse operation?”
Treat them as parts of one operation. Compare them against the work the distributor must do: orders, stock and delivery promises handled together.
Each proposal uses a different AI vocabulary. Put the customer’s task in the middle and mark where each one takes part.
| Step | Agentic AI proposal | Physical AI proposal | Embodied AI proposal | Existing staff |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Order received or changed | Processes the order | — | — | Handles exceptions |
| Stock checked, work scheduled | Allocates work | — | — | — |
| Goods moved and handled | — | Handles goods | Handles goods | Resolves what machines cannot |
| Delivered as promised | Updates the promise | — | — | Customer contact |
Overlap: two proposals claim the same handling work. Settle this before comparing prices.
- When the customer changes an order, what tells the warehouse?
- If a package cannot be handled, where does the request go?
- If the platform is unavailable, what work continues?
Next step: write each supplier’s responsibility boundary, and who takes over, into the purchase negotiation.
“Why not choose the cheapest single proposal?”
No single proposal covers the whole operation. The cheapest one may leave the handovers between steps without an owner, and those are where the delivery promise fails.
- Basis
- EPAI 2027, Ch. 3, “Put the work in the middle”
- Open
- Price of operating the handovers has not been quoted by any supplier.
“Who is accountable if the system stops?”
Nobody yet. Put it in the contract: where each supplier’s responsibility ends, who takes over, and what work continues during an outage.
- Basis
- EPAI 2027, Ch. 3; Ch. 14, “When the Robot Stopped”
- Open
- Service terms and outage plans not provided.
“Ministerial briefing: AI options for the national distribution pilot”
The comparison is between labels. The three proposals touch different steps of one operation; two overlap on goods handling. Compare them against the work, then decide.
Accurate as a summary. Add which step each deployment covered, so the reader can see what has been proven and where.
A section on who takes over when the platform is unavailable, and which supplier’s claim of completion holds if the customer refuses a delivery.
The cost of operating the handovers is missing. Mark it as an open item until a supplier or operator quotes it.
The seal records what was reviewed, and against what.
This is a specimen of a review statement under the B2AGI seal. The live review and issuance process is not connected.
It also names what B2AGI could not verify. That line is part of the statement, so the reader of your briefing knows where the review stopped.
← Back to the sample replyEmbodied Physical Agentic Intelligence
Embodied AI, physical AI and agentic AI have arrived on the same desk. EPAI brings intelligence, action, infrastructure, people, money and institutions onto a common map.
EPAI
Embodied Physical Agentic Intelligence is B2AGI’s proposed common coordinate for understanding AI capabilities and their relationships with physical action, people, infrastructure, capital and institutions. It connects overlapping fields without declaring their terms interchangeable.
Ecosystem
The EPAI ecosystem is the field of participants, capabilities, resources, dependencies and affected lives through which intelligence produces consequences. Its boundary is stated for the undertaking being examined and can be revised when an excluded relationship matters.
Framework
The EPAI Framework supplies common concepts and questions for examining that ecosystem: purpose, capability, dependency, authority, evidence, economic arrangements and consequences. It supports comparison without substituting for domain-specific requirements.
Prism
The EPAI Prism is a method of bringing accounts from different domains into contact so that evidence, constraints or objections in one can change the questions, options or judgments in another.
Cite as: Henry Chan Jung, EPAI 2027, v1.6, 27 October 2026, §3.1–3.4.