{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-act-013","code":"wm-act-013-maintenance","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-act-013-maintenance/","name":"Maintenance","alternateNames":["K11"],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.3.0","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Activities and processes","entryKind":"entity","plane":"","domain":["ACT.MNT"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.ACT.MNT","tags":["maintenance","act.mnt"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"One persistent asset-scoped maintenance record, with qualified condition assertions, applied programme references and linked work history. The root is not a single intervention, an asset master or a portfolio maintenance policy. All hierarchy, fields and functions below are proposed local design informed by the cited sources, not prescribed standard schemas. It records evidence and decisions without performing maintenance or certifying safety.","purpose":"Describe the continuing maintenance record for one identified physical asset or explicitly delimited maintainable system.","scope":{"in":["Stable record identity and effective stewardship for one externally mastered asset or system boundary","Condition, defects, applied strategy, due rules, planned and unplanned work, competence and control evidence","Actual interventions, resources, inspection outcomes, release references, learning and controlled continuity"],"out":["Asset, ownership, personnel, inventory, finance, contract and procedure master data","Construction, manufacture, general operation, portfolio optimization and software patch management","Physical repair instructions, dangerous-item procedures, automated safety authorization and compliance certification"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"WM-OBJ-022 asset lifecycle context","distinction":"The incoming candidate COMPOSE edge may expose a maintenance-history projection. It neither transfers the asset master nor makes one maintenance record compulsory for every asset."},{"neighbor":"Generic act and work order","distinction":"Acts have their own event identities and orders have their own authorization histories. The persistent maintenance root does not inherit the identity or lifecycle of one act; the legacy EXTEND claim is not ratified at the root."},{"neighbor":"Ownership, service contract and organization","distinction":"References identify asset rights, delegated duties and service commitments. Record stewardship can differ from legal asset ownership; a grant alone cannot settle statutory access duties."},{"neighbor":"Plan, schedule, procedure and inventory","distinction":"Shared definitions and stock masters remain external. This record stores asset-specific applicability, deviations and resource-use evidence with pinned references."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["Unlike WM-OBJ-022 asset lifecycle context: The incoming candidate COMPOSE edge may expose a maintenance-history projection. It neither transfers the asset master nor makes one maintenance record compulsory for every asset.","Unlike Generic act and work order: Acts have their own event identities and orders have their own authorization histories. The persistent maintenance root does not inherit the identity or lifecycle of one act; the legacy EXTEND claim is not ratified at the root.","Unlike Ownership, service contract and organization: References identify asset rights, delegated duties and service commitments. Record stewardship can differ from legal asset ownership; a grant alone cannot settle statutory access duties.","Unlike Plan, schedule, procedure and inventory: Shared definitions and stock masters remain external. This record stores asset-specific applicability, deviations and resource-use evidence with pinned references."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"maintenance-context-bundle","name":"Context and responsibility","description":"Defines whose record this is and the exact maintained boundary.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-identity-layer","name":"Asset and record identity","description":"Keep a stable maintenance record ID distinct from the asset reference. Replacement or boundary changes require explicit continuity decisions, not silent reuse.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-identity-finding","name":"Bounded maintenance identity","description":"Keep a stable maintenance record ID distinct from the asset reference. Replacement or boundary changes require explicit continuity decisions, not silent reuse.","questions":[{"text":"Which master identifiers and system boundary distinguish this maintenance record from the asset and its replaceable components?","id":"maintenance-identity-q1","kind":"identity"},{"text":"How are replacement, split or merged asset boundaries linked without rewriting earlier work history?","id":"maintenance-identity-q2","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which asset class, operating context and maintenance profile qualify the meaning of this record?","id":"maintenance-identity-q3","kind":"classification"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-responsibility-layer","name":"Stewardship and authority","description":"Separate record custody, asset rights, technical responsibility and contracted work. Time-bounded delegation must identify scope and evidence.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-responsibility-finding","name":"Effective responsibility assignment","description":"Separate record custody, asset rights, technical responsibility and contracted work. Time-bounded delegation must identify scope and evidence.","questions":[{"text":"Who is accountable for this maintenance record during each custody period, and where are asset rights recorded?","id":"maintenance-responsibility-q1","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Which delegation permits a maintainer to record work, approve changes or endorse a release for the specific asset scope?","id":"maintenance-responsibility-q2","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which recipient may see technician, defect or commercial details, and what independent duties constrain an owner grant?","id":"maintenance-responsibility-q3","kind":"access"}]}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-condition-bundle","name":"Condition and defects","description":"Keeps observations separate from interpretation and repair conclusions.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-observations-layer","name":"Condition observations","description":"An observation is an attributed, time-specific assessment with method and limitations. A dashboard latest value must not suppress conflicting or stale evidence.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-observations-finding","name":"Qualified assessment evidence","description":"An observation is an attributed, time-specific assessment with method and limitations. A dashboard latest value must not suppress conflicting or stale evidence.","questions":[{"text":"What was observed on which component, using which scale, unit, method and instrument qualification?","id":"maintenance-observations-q1","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"When was the condition observed and recorded, and what uncertainty or operating context limits comparison?","id":"maintenance-observations-q2","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"How are missing, stale or contradictory observations represented without treating absence as acceptable condition?","id":"maintenance-observations-q3","kind":"quality"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-defects-layer","name":"Defect interpretation","description":"A reported anomaly, confirmed defect, failure mode and causal hypothesis remain distinguishable. Closure needs its own evidence and can be reopened.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-defects-finding","name":"Defect and failure attribution","description":"A reported anomaly, confirmed defect, failure mode and causal hypothesis remain distinguishable. Closure needs its own evidence and can be reopened.","questions":[{"text":"Which defect or anomaly is open on the maintained scope, and how was its severity qualified?","id":"maintenance-defects-q1","kind":"state"},{"text":"What evidence supports the assigned failure mode or suspected cause, including alternative explanations?","id":"maintenance-defects-q2","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"What evidence and authorized review support closure or reopening of a defect after an intervention?","id":"maintenance-defects-q3","kind":"lifecycle"}]}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-programme-bundle","name":"Applied programme","description":"Records why work is due and preserves approved changes.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-strategy-layer","name":"Strategy applicability","description":"The applied programme links a reviewed strategy to asset context. A chosen approach is not a guarantee of reliability and may vary by failure mode.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-strategy-finding","name":"Asset-specific strategy decision","description":"The applied programme links a reviewed strategy to asset context. A chosen approach is not a guarantee of reliability and may vary by failure mode.","questions":[{"text":"Which strategy applies to each maintained function, and what risk or performance rationale supports it?","id":"maintenance-strategy-q1","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Which versioned instructions, obligations and procedure definitions constrain the selected maintenance strategy?","id":"maintenance-strategy-q2","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"How are strategy changes or deliberate deferrals justified, bounded and reviewed without hiding unresolved risk?","id":"maintenance-strategy-q3","kind":"exception"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-due-rules-layer","name":"Intervals and triggers","description":"Keep calendar, usage and condition triggers explicit. Unknown meter continuity or unavailable condition evidence yields an indeterminate result, not a safe extension.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-due-rules-finding","name":"Qualified due-work determination","description":"Keep calendar, usage and condition triggers explicit. Unknown meter continuity or unavailable condition evidence yields an indeterminate result, not a safe extension.","questions":[{"text":"Which calendar, elapsed-use or condition rule determines the next due work and its observation basis?","id":"maintenance-due-rules-q1","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"How are meter resets, missing readings, time uncertainty and trigger conflicts handled before marking work due or overdue?","id":"maintenance-due-rules-q2","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Who approved the planned work window or interval revision, and how are blocked or overdue tasks escalated?","id":"maintenance-due-rules-q3","kind":"process"}]}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-work-control-bundle","name":"Work control","description":"Separates requested work, authority and readiness to undertake it.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-orders-layer","name":"Work request and order","description":"Requests, approval and execution evidence are separate. An emergency or retrospective record is possible without inventing prior approval or a mandatory programme link.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-orders-finding","name":"Authorized scope and progress","description":"Requests, approval and execution evidence are separate. An emergency or retrospective record is possible without inventing prior approval or a mandatory programme link.","questions":[{"text":"Which request and work-order identifiers link the proposed task to its asset scope and initiating condition?","id":"maintenance-orders-q1","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Who authorized which work scope and revision, with what priority, constraints and permitted expenditure reference?","id":"maintenance-orders-q2","kind":"authority"},{"text":"How are cancellation, partial completion, blocked work and emergency retrospective registration distinguished from authorized completion?","id":"maintenance-orders-q3","kind":"state"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-readiness-layer","name":"Competence and work controls","description":"The record links competence, approved method and risk-control decisions. Presence of a checklist is not proof that controls are effective; dangerous procedures remain outside this model.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-readiness-finding","name":"Evidence of readiness review","description":"The record links competence, approved method and risk-control decisions. Presence of a checklist is not proof that controls are effective; dangerous procedures remain outside this model.","questions":[{"text":"What task-specific competence and procedure revision were required, and what evidence was reviewed for each assigned role?","id":"maintenance-readiness-q1","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which authorized risk-control and permit records govern the work, and how is their current status evidenced?","id":"maintenance-readiness-q2","kind":"security"},{"text":"What stops or postpones the task when competence, control evidence or site coordination is missing or disputed?","id":"maintenance-readiness-q3","kind":"exception"}]}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-performance-bundle","name":"Performed work and resources","description":"Records what actually happened without rewriting the authorized plan.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-interventions-layer","name":"Actual intervention","description":"An intervention can cover part of an order or reveal new work. Actual times, actors and deviations retain their own provenance; no work is inferred from a scheduled slot.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-interventions-finding","name":"Attributed work execution record","description":"An intervention can cover part of an order or reveal new work. Actual times, actors and deviations retain their own provenance; no work is inferred from a scheduled slot.","questions":[{"text":"What maintenance action actually occurred, by whom, on which scope and against which order or emergency basis?","id":"maintenance-interventions-q1","kind":"event"},{"text":"Which actual activity and outage periods were observed, with what time precision and distinction from planned duration?","id":"maintenance-interventions-q2","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Which deviations, interrupted steps or newly discovered defects require separate authorization or follow-up?","id":"maintenance-interventions-q3","kind":"process"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-resources-layer","name":"Parts and resource use","description":"Represent installed, removed, consumed and unused materials separately. Resource use links to external inventory and finance records; lot traceability depends on the item profile.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-resources-finding","name":"Traceable resource disposition","description":"Represent installed, removed, consumed and unused materials separately. Resource use links to external inventory and finance records; lot traceability depends on the item profile.","questions":[{"text":"Which components or materials were installed, removed or consumed, in what quantities and units?","id":"maintenance-resources-q1","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Which serial, lot, supplier or suitability evidence is available, required or missing for each used item?","id":"maintenance-resources-q2","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"How are labor, tools, unused parts, waste and cost references reconciled without making this record the inventory or finance master?","id":"maintenance-resources-q3","kind":"relationship"}]}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-outcome-bundle","name":"Verification and disposition","description":"Separates evidence of results from authority to resume use.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-verification-layer","name":"Post-work evidence","description":"Before and after evidence may be incomparable, unchanged or worse. A temporal association does not establish that the intervention caused the observed change.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-verification-finding","name":"Qualified outcome comparison","description":"Before and after evidence may be incomparable, unchanged or worse. A temporal association does not establish that the intervention caused the observed change.","questions":[{"text":"Which inspection or test evidence demonstrates the actual result against the stated acceptance criteria?","id":"maintenance-verification-q1","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Are the before and after observations comparable in scope, scale and operating context, and what change can be supported?","id":"maintenance-verification-q2","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Which residual defects, failed criteria or unobserved outcomes remain visible after the work is recorded as performed?","id":"maintenance-verification-q3","kind":"quality"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-release-layer","name":"Use restrictions and release","description":"Local completion does not authorize operation. Record an external authorized decision with scope, restrictions and expiry; allow withheld, conditional or revoked disposition.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-release-finding","name":"Qualified disposition decision","description":"Local completion does not authorize operation. Record an external authorized decision with scope, restrictions and expiry; allow withheld, conditional or revoked disposition.","questions":[{"text":"Who made the applicable decision to allow, restrict or prohibit further use, and on what competence and authority basis?","id":"maintenance-release-q1","kind":"authority"},{"text":"What asset configuration, operating conditions, residual issues and validity period bound the recorded release or restriction?","id":"maintenance-release-q2","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How are a withheld, conditional or revoked release and any subsequent resumption of use recorded as distinct events?","id":"maintenance-release-q3","kind":"lifecycle"}]}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-continuity-bundle","name":"Learning and record continuity","description":"Supports qualified summaries and responsible preservation.","layers":[{"id":"maintenance-learning-layer","name":"History and improvement","description":"Summary metrics require explicit populations, durations and exclusions. Proposed programme changes remain separate decisions; no reliability improvement is promised.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-learning-finding","name":"Evidence-qualified maintenance review","description":"Summary metrics require explicit populations, durations and exclusions. Proposed programme changes remain separate decisions; no reliability improvement is promised.","questions":[{"text":"What population, observation window, downtime definition and exclusions underlie a maintenance or failure metric?","id":"maintenance-learning-q1","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Which missing work records, repeat defects or uncertain classifications limit the interpretation of reported performance?","id":"maintenance-learning-q2","kind":"quality"},{"text":"What approved follow-up changes the programme after review, and how is its rationale linked to the supporting evidence?","id":"maintenance-learning-q3","kind":"decision"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-record-continuity-layer","name":"Transfer and retention","description":"Corrections, custody transfer and lawful disposal must preserve meaning without imposing perpetual payload retention. Different record classes may have different periods and access duties.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-record-continuity-finding","name":"Controlled history continuity","description":"Corrections, custody transfer and lawful disposal must preserve meaning without imposing perpetual payload retention. Different record classes may have different periods and access duties.","questions":[{"text":"How does a corrected or imported entry identify its source, original version and superseded assertion?","id":"maintenance-record-continuity-q1","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Which record-class retention rule, unresolved claim or hold governs disposal, including copies and personal details?","id":"maintenance-record-continuity-q2","kind":"retention"},{"text":"What authorized transfer package preserves asset and event references, code meanings, access limits and missing-history declarations?","id":"maintenance-record-continuity-q3","kind":"interoperability"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Register bounded maintenance context: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create the local record and qualified asset links.","Record an attributed assessment: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append an observation or defect assertion with uncertainty.","Evaluate stated due rules: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Evaluate a supplied approved trigger as a proposed local calculation.","Link order and readiness evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record separately authorized scope and readiness references.","Record actual work and resources: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append performed-work assertions and resource references.","Record qualified outcome and release: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Link observed outcomes and an externally authorized use decision.","Prepare a scoped history projection: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Produce an entitled-recipient view with completeness and lineage metadata."],"mustNot":["Deny access and mutation unless the actor has an effective role, asset scope and permitted purpose; technical competence and release authority require separate evidence."],"requiresHuman":[]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Correct by linked supersession, retaining required evidence subject to the applicable retention and privacy rules.","Retiring a local maintenance record does not retire the asset, revoke legal decisions or justify indefinite retention of personal data."],"affectedParties":[]},"owners":{"steward":"Name the accountable record steward and delegated maintainer roles with effective scope; use role names rather than company names.","roles":[{"name":"Record steward","responsibilities":["Maintain asset scope, custody and lawful access rules; coordinate retention review."]},{"name":"Maintenance planner","responsibilities":["Record approved strategy, due rules, work scope and reviewed exceptions."]},{"name":"Competent maintainer","responsibilities":["Submit attributed actual-work and resource evidence within authorized scope."]},{"name":"Technical reviewer","responsibilities":["Assess outcome evidence and residual defects; preserve disagreement."]},{"name":"Release authority","responsibilities":["Provide separately authorized, scoped and time-qualified use decisions where the applicable profile permits."]},{"name":"Records custodian","responsibilities":["Control corrections, transfer packages, retention holds and authorized disposal."]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-OBJ-022","type":"references","note":"Candidate external asset lifecycle context. The incoming COMPOSE edge is a history projection, not mandatory containment or reciprocal ownership."},{"target":"Asset and ownership master","type":"references","note":"Resolve asset identity and rights without copying masters. Exact registry bindings require later review."},{"target":"Plan, schedule and procedure definitions","type":"references","note":"Pin approved definitions; record only applied asset scope and actual deviations locally."},{"target":"Service, organization and personnel records","type":"references","note":"Resolve contract and competence evidence; do not infer release authority from employment or service assignment."},{"target":"Inventory and financial records","type":"references","note":"Link material movements and approved cost evidence; ISO 14224 abstract is not a direct-cost schema."},{"target":"Generic act model","type":"aligned","note":"Maintenance interventions may specialize activity semantics; the persistent root does not inherit an atomic act lifecycle."},{"target":"ISO 55000:2024 and ISO 14224:2016","type":"aligned","note":"Public overview and abstract alignment only, subject to domain and licensing review; no conformance assertion."},{"target":"PROV-O and RFC 3339","type":"aligned","note":"Conceptual attribution and timestamp alignment; executable mappings and validators remain deferred."},{"target":"WM-OBJ-022 asset lifecycle context","type":"neighbor","note":"The incoming candidate COMPOSE edge may expose a maintenance-history projection. It neither transfers the asset master nor makes one maintenance record compulsory for every asset."},{"target":"Generic act and work order","type":"neighbor","note":"Acts have their own event identities and orders have their own authorization histories. The persistent maintenance root does not inherit the identity or lifecycle of one act; the legacy EXTEND claim is not ratified at the root."},{"target":"Ownership, service contract and organization","type":"neighbor","note":"References identify asset rights, delegated duties and service commitments. Record stewardship can differ from legal asset ownership; a grant alone cannot settle statutory access duties."},{"target":"Plan, schedule, procedure and inventory","type":"neighbor","note":"Shared definitions and stock masters remain external. This record stores asset-specific applicability, deviations and resource-use evidence with pinned references."}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative master-system identifier qualified by issuer and revision","Existing durable registry identifier or controlled external reference","Owner-scoped UUID registered before use; never a time-only identifier"]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":[]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Register bounded maintenance context: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Create the local record and qualified asset links.","Record an attributed assessment: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append an observation or defect assertion with uncertainty.","Evaluate stated due rules: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Evaluate a supplied approved trigger as a proposed local calculation.","Link order and readiness evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record separately authorized scope and readiness references.","Record actual work and resources: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Append performed-work assertions and resource references.","Record qualified outcome and release: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Link observed outcomes and an externally authorized use decision.","Prepare a scoped history projection: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Produce an entitled-recipient view with completeness and lineage metadata."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"optional","items":[]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["ISO 55000:2024 - Asset management - Vocabulary, overview and principles","ISO 14224:2016 - Collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment","PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","RFC 3339 - Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps"]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["Great Britain work-equipment guidance and historical United States facilities guidance are examples, not global law.","The ISO 14224 abstract has a specified industrial domain; applying its concepts elsewhere is a proposed design inference."]}},"sources":[{"title":"ISO 55000:2024 - Asset management - Vocabulary, overview and principles","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/83053.html","note":"International Organization for Standardization"},{"title":"ISO 14224:2016 - Collection and exchange of reliability and maintenance data for equipment","url":"https://www.iso.org/standard/64076.html","note":"International Organization for Standardization"},{"title":"Operations and Maintenance Best Practices Guide","url":"https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/04/f74/omguide_complete_w-eo-disclaimer.pdf","note":"United States Department of Energy"},{"title":"Maintenance of work equipment","url":"https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/maintenance.htm","note":"Health and Safety Executive"},{"title":"Inspection of work equipment","url":"https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/inspection.htm","note":"Health and Safety Executive"},{"title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"RFC 3339 - Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force"}],"openQuestions":["Verify live source responses and current versions outside the sandbox, obtain appropriately licensed standards text, and review the relevant sector and jurisdiction requirements.","Develop instance schemas and mappings with fixtures for replaced assets, meter reset, conflicting observations, emergency work, partial completion, failed inspection, withheld release and lawful record disposal.","Restore independent external review before promotion beyond a noncanonical reviewable draft.","Independent external review is absent; a later local self-audit cannot replace it.","Full paid ISO texts and EN 13306 terminology mapping were not reviewed; no standard-conformance certification.","Current source versions, complete errata, legal applicability and all asset-sector regimes remain unverified.","Executable nested instance schemas, event cardinalities, state machines, neighbor bindings and import mappings require fixtures.","Physical intervention methods, predictive algorithms, safety thresholds and universal maintenance intervals are deliberately excluded."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-act-013-maintenance/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-act-013-maintenance/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-act-013"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-act-013-maintenance/spec.yaml"],"providers":["Codex"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-10-06T14:16:31Z","builder":"tools/build_cards.py@1.0.0"},"completeness":{"sections":{"classifiers":"filled","whatItIs":"filled","purpose":"filled","distinguishingFeatures":"derived","structure":"filled","agentConduct":"derived","ethics":"derived","owners":"filled","relations":"filled","interaction.identity":"filled","interaction.properties":"not-applicable","interaction.recognition":"missing","interaction.capabilities":"filled","interaction.hazards":"missing","interaction.interfaces":"derived","interaction.context":"filled","sources":"filled"},"notes":{"distinguishingFeatures":"Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.","agentConduct":"Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.","ethics":"Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.","interaction.properties":"Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties."},"score":0.75}}