Supplementary Note 1 — Connecting the TM Forum AN Framework with this Series

Telco × Agentic AI / Part 13
June 2026 / Author: Hiroyuki Hikino
🎧 Click here to listen to the audio version

If you would like to grasp the overall picture through audio before reading the text, please start here.
You can listen simply by pressing the play button.

Introduction: Why include a 'tangential' supplementary note?

By Part 12, the theoretical core of this series had been fully presented.

From here on, in Parts 13 and 14, I will step slightly outside the main argument to include supplementary notes.

The reason for writing two supplementary notes is that there are two themes that this series has intentionally not delved into until now, but which industry readers will inevitably ask about.

• 'So, what is the relationship with the TM Forum AN framework?' (Part 13, this article)

• 'I understand the technology, but I can't get internal approval unless the governance is resolved' (Part 14)

Both are extremely sharp questions from a field perspective.
If I do not answer these directly, no matter how much I summarize in Part 17 (the final installment), it will not reach industry decision-makers.
This time, I will organize the former: the relationship with the TM Forum.

Organizing the TM Forum AN Framework (Positioning as an Industry Standard)

First, I will summarize the TM Forum AN framework as a common industry language within the context of this series.

This framework itself is extremely important as a common language for the industry.
It functions as a shared coordinate system when discussing AN, including carriers, vendors, consultants, and regulatory authorities.

However, I would like to clarify the position of this series here.
The TM Forum AN framework is a model of organizational maturity.
This has a different perspective from the technical architecture that I have discussed up to Part 11.

'Organizational Maturity Model' and 'Technical Architecture' are different things

If you confuse these, the entire discussion will become twisted.
Let's separate and organize them.

This is similar to the relationship where CMMI and TOGAF are both necessary but different things.
With just an organizational maturity model, it is not decided what should be built.
With just a technical architecture, you cannot measure how far the organization has progressed.

Only by having both can industry discussions be grounded.

Connection Point: 3-Layer Structure × AN Level

When we overlay the 3-layer structure of "Observation, Judgment, and Execution," which is the pillar of this series, with the TM Forum AN levels, a natural correspondence becomes apparent.

What is important in this table is the fact that the difference between L3 and L4 depends on the automation of execution. This means that the discussion of the "execution layer as a void" repeated in parts 1 to 3 of this series and the achievement conditions viewed from the TM Forum side
perfectly align.

Conversely, it can be organized that the toolkit of W365 for Agent / Entra Agent ID / CUA / Opal that this series has discussed is the first set to technically satisfy the conditions for establishing an execution layer for TM Forum AN L4.

Points to Note When Borrowing TM Forum Terminology

When using TM Forum terminology in industry communications, there are two points to keep in mind.

Note 1: "L4" is a goal, not an endpoint

Industry documents often discuss roadmaps such as "reaching L4 by 2027" or "reaching L5 by 2030." However, L4/L5 are
goals for organizational maturity, not endpoints for technical components.

As for technical components, the technical prerequisites for L4 are met once the five conditions discussed in Part 12 are satisfied. From there, how to put it into operation as an organization, how to reallocate human resources, and how to align it with audits and regulations — these are areas for TM Forum discussion.

Note 2: L5 includes discussions on regulation and ethics

L5 cannot be discussed through technology alone. Autonomy in all domains and under all conditions enters the realm of regulatory dialogue, social acceptance, and labor-management dialogue. Once you reach this point, it exceeds the scope that a technology vendor can discuss alone.

This series takes the position of keeping up to L4 within the scope of technical discussion, indicating only the technical conditions for L5, and separating social conditions as a separate discussion.

Why the TM Forum discussion and this series are complementary

Based on the organization so far, the relationship between this series and the TM Forum AN framework can be summarized in one sentence as follows:

When TM Forum terminology comes up in industry discussion forums, it is not productive to introduce the arguments of this series in a way that negates the TM Forum. Connecting the arguments of this series as
implementation conditions from the technical side to the TM Forum's organizational maturity discussion — this is the correct attitude for constructively aligning the two.

Possibility of connection with the Catalyst project

The TM Forum has a mechanism called the Catalyst project, where CSPs (carriers) and multiple vendors conduct joint demonstrations. Here, a venue is provided to demonstrate
solutions that can be implemented by multiple vendors for common industry challenges.

The execution layer toolkit discussed in this series has high structural affinity as a subject for the Catalyst project. The reason is simple,

1. The challenge is industry-wide (stalling at L3)

2. The solution is not locked to a single vendor (observation, judgment, and data layers can be combined from various companies' products)

3. The control layer (W365 for Agent / Entra Agent ID) can be organized as an industry de facto standard

From this point on, this is an area for concrete dialogue with industry readers and carriers.
As this goes beyond the scope of what can be written in this article, I would like to discuss it individually with those who are interested.

Next Issue Preview: The Wall of Control, Its True Height

In the next issue (Part 14), as another supplementary note, we will delve into the Wall of Control.

Even if the technology is ready, internal approval is not granted — this is a situation that enterprises, not just Telcos, always face when introducing new technology.
In particular, the idea of agents operating business systems brings a full set of control issues to the fore: division of responsibility, auditing, data boundaries, sandboxes, and regulatory dialogue.

Unless we get past this, no matter how well the technology is established, it will not reach the front lines.
I will present a path to solving this structurally in the next issue.

Notes (Reprinted)

• This article represents my personal views and does not represent my affiliated organization.

• The descriptions of the TM Forum AN Framework in this article are the author's understanding and summary based on publicly available TM Forum materials and secondary industry reports. Please refer to the official TM Forum materials for the latest official definitions.

• Please check the official TM Forum guidance for requirements and eligibility for participating in the Catalyst project.

Series Index

• Part 1: The Wall of Autonomous Operations — Why Does It Stall at L3?

• Part 2: Conditions for Reaching AN Level 4 — The Three-Layer Structure of Observation, Judgment, and Execution

• Part 3: The Execution Layer Void — Why Is the Entire Industry Stuck?

• Part 4: Head, Hands, and Control — The Three Elements Required for the Execution Layer

• Part 5: The Three-Element Matrix — Re-evaluating Existing Approaches

• Part 6: The New Horizon of Agentic AI Runtime

• Part 7: Windows 365 for Agent — The 'Execution Layer Foundation' the Industry Has Been Waiting For Has Emerged

• Extra Edition (Part 7.5): 95% Are Caused by Human Error — The New Battlefield of Agent IDs

• Part 8: Project Opal — The Uncharted Territory of the Orchestration Layer

• Part 9: Application to Telco AN (1) — Closed-Loop Fault Management

• Part 10: Application to Telco AN (2) — Service Deployment and the Barrier of Vendor GUIs

• Part 11: Application to Telco AN (3) — Self-Healing, Self-Optimization, and the Learning Loop

• Part 12: Why Microsoft — The Theory of Structural Advantage

• Part 13: Supplementary Note 1 — Connecting the TM Forum AN Framework to This Series (This Article)

• Part 14: Supplementary Note 2 — The Barrier of Control, Its True Height

• Part 15: Supplementary Note 3 — The Barrier of Observation — From Substrate Observability to Outcome Observability

• Part 16: Supplementary Note 4 — The Barrier of Defense — Detection and Structural Defense Are Different Tasks

• Part 17 (Final): Beyond the Execution Layer of Autonomous Networks — Summary of Act 1 and Connection to Act 2

This article: approx. 4,400 characters / 13-minute read

Author: Hiroyuki Hikino
20 years in the telecommunications industry. 3G/4G/5G mobile core network design / Former Cisco network engineer / Currently at Microsoft (personal views) / Representative of Diestaday LLC

Please feel free to share your opinions or questions in the article comments or on LinkedIn.

If you resonate with this series, please 'like' and follow on note, and repost on LinkedIn.