Data Modeling for Multi-Agent Architectures in AI Systems

Most multi-agent systems fail not because the agents are weak, but because the data underneath them is unstructured, inconsistent, or fragmented.

When every agent maintains its own copy of the truth (or worse, generates new ones) you get duplicated records, confused context, and runaway compute costs. Without a clear data model across your systems of record, context layer, and orchestration logic, scaling AI agents quickly turns into an endless debugging exercise.

In this article and three further expansions we break down a practical data modeling framework for multi-agent architectures and show how to align your agents, context systems, and workflows around a coherent data foundation.

1. The Three-Layer Data Model for Multi-Agent Systems

A robust multi-agent architecture depends on three data layers that work in sync:

1. Systems of Record (SoR): your ground truth: CRMs, databases, document and object stores.
2. Context & Knowledge Management System (CKMS): the connective layer that holds metadata and embeddings, making SoR data usable by agents.
3. Orchestration Layer: the procedural layer (SOPs + DAGs) that governs how agents coordinate and in what order tasks are executed.

Think of these as truth, context, and control:

• The SoR tells agents what is true.
• The CKMS tells them what is relevant.
• The Orchestration Layer tells them what to do and when.

Modeling data consistently across these three ensures your agents don’t operate in silos and that your system remains stable and predictable as it scales.

2. Agent Archetypes and Their Data Interactions

In most multi-agent setups, a handful of agent archetypes emerge naturally. Modeling data becomes simpler if you treat these roles as fixed “data actors”:

This archetype framing makes the data model predictable: you can now define which agents write to SoR, which query the CKMS, and which rely on orchestration logic.

For example, the Planning Agent should never directly query a CRM; it should instead request relevant context from CKMS. This keeps the orchestration logic clean and prevents duplication across pipelines.

3. Modeling Data Across the Three Layers

a. Systems of Record (SoR): The Source of Truth

Keep this layer as atomic as possible.

• Maintain raw, structured data with clear versioning.
• Separate operational data (orders, leads, tasks) from generated data (AI summaries, analyses).
• Use consistent IDs so CKMS and orchestration layers can reference the same entities without redundancy.

Example:

In an e-commerce context, “Product,” “Order,” and “Supplier” tables should remain clean of generated metadata. AI-generated insights (e.g., “Product quality summary”) live in CKMS but reference the same product IDs.

For more details, read our article: Data Modeling for AI Agents pt.1: the Systems of Record Layer.

b. CKMS: Making Truth Contextual

The CKMS (Context & Knowledge Management System) is your bridge between raw data and agent reasoning. It’s where metadata and embeddings live.

Your CKMS schema might look like this:

• Metadata Table: document_id, entity_type, source_system, last_synced, relevance_score
• Vector Store: embeddings grouped by use case (e.g., search, planning, response generation)

Practical setup example:

• Use Postgres for metadata (for transaction safety and joins).
• Use Pinecone, Weaviate or Qdrant for embeddings.
• Use LangChain or LlamaIndex to create context retrieval pipelines, where agents query the CKMS instead of the SoR directly.

Structuring metadata:

Each entry in CKMS should specify visibility tags or roles for agents:

• Planning agents: summary-level embeddings
• Search agents: full-context embeddings
• Response agents: user-ready embeddings

This prevents overfetching and lowers token costs.

To learn more about data modeling in CKMS, read Data Modeling for AI Agents pt.2: the Context and Knowledge Layer.

c. Orchestration Layer: The Process Brain

The Orchestration Layer defines how agents collaborate: what happens first, what depends on what, and how context flows between them. It’s where planning agents turn your strategy and rules into a structured and organized execution across the system.

We often see, especially in early-stage startups, that SOPs are embedded in ad-hoc scripts or JSON blobs, but we find that it’s best to manage orchestration as declarative workflows (e.g., YAML or DSL files) that live in version control and are executed by a workflow engine such as Prefect, Temporal, or Dagster.

These tools automatically handle task sequencing, retries, and state tracking, letting you monitor and replay multi-agent processes with reliability. We believe that focusing on this takes your systems out of sandbox into a sellable and scalable solution.

A simple pattern is to:

• Store the workflow definition (the SOP) in Git or object storage,
• Keep only metadata and version references in your database,
• Let your orchestrator handle execution state and logs.

This makes orchestration inspectable, testable, and maintainable, which is key for avoiding duplicated logic, unpredictable behavior, and growing operational complexity as your agent network scales.

For a deeper look, see our article Data Modeling for AI Agents pt.3: the Orchestration Layer.

4. Practical Example: How These Layers Work Together

Let’s say your system needs to answer complex product support questions.

1. Planning Agent reads orchestration DAG and decides that a “search” → “response” → “review” chain is needed.
2. Search Agent queries CKMS (not the raw DB) to fetch the latest embeddings for that product.
3. Response Agent generates an answer using CKMS context.
4. Review Agent checks for consistency or outdated context and updates the CKMS metadata.
5. CKMS updates its “relevance score,” which feeds back into the next query cycle.

Each layer reinforces the others: SoR remains clean, CKMS remains enriched, orchestration remains inspectable.

5. Common Pitfalls When Data Modeling Fails

1. Data Drift & Duplication

   Happens when CKMS and SoR lose synchronization. Agents start generating outdated or inconsistent data, often unknowingly.

2. Context Inflation

   Without structured metadata and visibility tags, agents pull massive context chunks, increasing cost and hallucination risk.

3. Operational Bloat

   Overly dynamic orchestration logic (e.g. chains built in prompts) causes latency and unpredictable costs. Storing SOPs as DAGs keeps this manageable.

6. Designing for Consistency and Cost Control

To keep your multi-agent system predictable and affordable:

• Map ownership of data per agent archetype i.e. who reads, who writes.
• Model explicit relationships between SoR and CKMS using consistent IDs.
• Keep orchestration logic declarative and versioned with no “hidden logic” inside prompts.
• Periodically sync and prune embeddings in CKMS to avoid drift and cost creep.

When done right, your architecture evolves naturally: agents specialize, orchestration stays interpretable, and your cost per operation stays flat as usage scales.

✅ Key Takeaway

Multi-agent architectures aren’t about throwing more LLMs at the problem, they’re about building a data model that keeps them aligned.

By structuring data across Systems of Record, CKMS, and the Orchestration Layer, you build AI systems that are scalable, inspectable, and economically sustainable.