Great question, and you're pointing at the exact layer that's easiest to forget. From what Anthropic shared, the semantic layer does live in the same repo as everything else — they say "nearly all data code (modeling, semantic layer, reference docs, canonical dashboard definitions)" is colocated, with CI checks that protect cross-layer integrity. So if a modeling change would break a downstream metric definition, CI should flag it. But I think your instinct is right that there's a gap between "CI catches a breaking schema change" and "CI catches a metric definition that's now subtly wrong because the business meaning shifted." A renamed column breaks the build. A table that silently starts excluding a new customer segment doesn't. That second kind of drift is exactly what you're describing — the artifact everyone assumes is stable because a human signed off on it once. Anthropics's mitigation seems to be the offline eval set — they run it in CI so a PR touching a dependency re-runs the affected evals, and they track the share of agent queries that resolve through the semantic layer as a production signal. But they also explicitly say the silent failure mode (answer is wrong but looks plausible) is one they don't have a robust solution for yet. I'd be curious how you're approaching this in your evidence-and-provenance work. Are you testing the metric output itself (does revenue still match the blessed dashboard), or testing the definition's validity against the underlying schema?
