{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-knw-007","code":"wm-knw-007-claim-proposition","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-knw-007-claim-proposition/","name":"Claim / Proposition","alternateNames":[],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.3.0-research.1","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Information and virtual systems","entryKind":"entity","plane":"","domain":["INF.KNW.CLM"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.INF.KNW.CLM","tags":["claim","proposition","inf.knw.clm"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"WM-KNW-007 covers the claim record as an object of knowledge management: propositional content and canonical form, identity and equivalence, scope and qualification (subject, place, time, conditions, measurand), stated calibrated uncertainty, the assertion act and asserting authority, provenance and ownership of the record, typed claim-to-claim relations, bound references to evidence and assessments, record lifecycle and versioning, well-formedness validation, sensitivity/access classification and disposition, and interoperability projections. It excludes the evidence items themselves, the appraisal of evidence bodies, the application and evaluation of inference schemes, the execution of fact-checking or verification, policy enforcement, and runtime audit trails owned by other systems.","purpose":"Provide a format-neutral record of a truth-apt assertion: what proposition is asserted, under what scope and qualification, by whom and with what standing, how it relates to other claims, which evidence and assessments it references, and how the claim record itself is identified, versioned, validated, restricted and disposed of. The model records assertion, not verdicts.","scope":{"in":["Canonical truth-apt statement, its language, atomicity and optional normalized subject-property-value or logical form","Claim identity, aliases, equivalence, restatement and translation relationships","Scope qualifiers: subject or population range, spatial extent, validity interval, conditions, assumptions, scenarios and known defeaters","Quantitative content of measurement claims: measurand, value, unit, stated coverage interval","Calibrated qualification stated on the claim: confidence and likelihood terms, scale reference and traceable-account pointer","The assertion act: claimant, role, illocutionary commitment, first and subsequent appearances, asserting authority and mandate","Provenance, attribution, derivation, ownership, stewardship and rights of the claim record","Typed claim-to-claim relations: entailment, specialization, contradiction, rebuttal, preference, supersession","Bound references to evidence items, external assessments/reviews and argument structures, carrying binding parameters only","Record lifecycle states, transitions, versioning, patch rules and externally issued retraction or correction references","Well-formedness shapes, required-field profiles and quality/testability signals for the record","Sensitivity classification, access policy expression, retention schedule, tombstones and disposition rules","Interoperability alignments and lossy-projection declarations across PROV-O, schema.org, VC 2.0, AIF, nanopublication and RDF 1.2"],"out":["Evidence items, citations, source descriptions, evidence typology, evidence appraisal and evidence lifecycle, which are owned by WM-KNW-008","Application and evaluation of inference, conflict and preference rules (AIF RA, CA and PA node semantics) and any defeasible-reasoning engine","Execution of fact-checking, verification or adjudication workflows, and the rating semantics, reviewer processes and audit trails of assessment systems","Runtime enforcement or evaluation of access and usage policies, and policy-decision logging","The real-world entities, events and quantities the claim is about, which belong to subject-domain models","Documents, publications and media that carry a claim, and publisher retraction workflows executed under NISO CREC","Cryptographic proof, credential status lists and verification procedures of Verifiable Credentials transport","Agent belief state, trust scoring of claimants or sources, and reputation computation","Storage engines, serializations and access interfaces (JSON, YAML, Markdown, Git, MCP, MongoDB are projections)","Generic knowledge-asset register mechanics inherited from the parent model WM-KNW-001"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"WM-KNW-008 Evidence / Citation","distinction":"This model carries the evidence reference, the binding role (supports, challenges, qualifies), directionality and a locally stated binding weight. It never carries the evidence item's description, provenance, appraisal grade or lifecycle; those are dereferenced from WM-KNW-008 and are never copied into a claim record."},{"neighbor":"Argumentation / inference-scheme model (not yet registered)","distinction":"A claim corresponds to the AIF I-node level. Applications of rules of inference (RA), conflict (CA) and preference (PA), argument-scheme definitions and any evaluation of argument acceptability belong to an argumentation model. This model records only that a claim occupies a premise or conclusion role in an externally identified argument structure."},{"neighbor":"Assessment / fact-check record (schema.org ClaimReview)","distinction":"This model holds the reviewable claim and a reference to reviews of it. The review's rating scale, reviewer identity workflow, publication and audit trail are owned by the reviewing system; a review reference is never read as a truth value on the claim record."},{"neighbor":"W3C PROV provenance model","distinction":"PROV terms are used as alignment for attribution, derivation, revision and invalidation of the claim record. This model does not own generic Activity/Agent modelling, provenance-of-provenance bundles or provenance query semantics."},{"neighbor":"Verifiable Credentials and assertion transport","distinction":"A VC claim is a subject-property-value assertion carried inside a credential secured by proof. This model treats the proposition independently of transport: credential validity, status and cryptographic verification are owned by credential models and must not be interpreted as claim truth or claim lifecycle."},{"neighbor":"Metrology / observation models","distinction":"A quantitative claim references a measurand, a value with unit and a stated coverage interval. The measurement procedure, instrument, calibration and metrological traceability chain belong to a measurement or observation model."},{"neighbor":"Access-policy enforcement platforms (ODRL evaluators)","distinction":"This model expresses sensitivity classes and ODRL policies about claim records. ODRL is a policy expression language that defines no enforcement or evaluation semantics, and none is claimed here; decisioning and its logs belong to the adopting Dimension's platform."},{"neighbor":"WM-KNW-001 (parent knowledge model)","distinction":"Generic knowledge-asset identity, register governance, stewardship and licensing are inherited through the CHILD link. This model specializes only what makes a record truth-apt: proposition, qualification, assertion and claim relations."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["Records that a proposition was asserted, by whom and with what scope, not whether it is true.","One record holds one proposition; compound statements are split.","References evidence and assessments rather than owning them.","Unlike a fact-check, it does not deliver a verdict."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"proposition-content-and-identity","name":"Proposition Content and Identity","description":"What proposition the record asserts, in what form, of what kind, and how that proposition is identified and recognised as the same claim across restatements, translations and systems.","layers":[{"id":"content-and-form","name":"Content and Form","description":"The canonical statement, its logical shape and its type, including the test that decides whether the content is truth-apt at all.","findings":[{"id":"canonical-statement","name":"Canonical Statement","description":"The single declarative sentence the record asserts, held in a canonical surface form with a language tag, an optional normalized structured form for machine comparison, and an atomicity rule of one record to one proposition.","questions":[{"text":"What single truth-apt proposition does this record assert, expressed as one declarative sentence?","id":"cst-q1","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Which normalized structured form represents the statement for machine comparison?","id":"cst-q2","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Does the statement bundle several separately assertable propositions that must be split into distinct records?","id":"cst-q3","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Is the canonical text a verbatim quotation of the claimant or a curator paraphrase, and in which language?","id":"cst-q4","kind":"provenance"}]},{"id":"logical-form-and-modality","name":"Logical Form and Modality","description":"The structural properties that change what the statement asserts: polarity, quantification over the subject range, alethic or deontic modality, tense, and hedging that weakens the assertion.","questions":[{"text":"Is the assertion affirmative or negative, and does negation take wide or narrow scope?","id":"lfm-q1","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Does the claim quantify universally, existentially or statistically over its subject range?","id":"lfm-q2","kind":"classification"},{"text":"What modality does the statement carry: factual, possible, necessary, obligatory or recommended?","id":"lfm-q3","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which hedges or qualifiers in the wording weaken the assertion, and are they preserved or moved into structured fields?","id":"lfm-q4","kind":"quality"}]},{"id":"claim-type-and-truth-aptness","name":"Claim Type and Truth-Aptness","description":"The gate test that admits only truth-apt content to the register, and the classification of admitted claims by the kind of proposition asserted, which drives which scope and qualification fields are required.","questions":[{"text":"Is this content truth-apt, or is it a question, instruction, performative or bare preference that the register must reject?","id":"ctt-q1","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Which claim type applies: empirical, causal, comparative, predictive, definitional, classificatory, normative or evaluative?","id":"ctt-q2","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which scope, measurement and qualification fields does the assigned claim type make mandatory?","id":"ctt-q3","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Under what conditions would this claim count as false, and is it falsifiable in principle?","id":"ctt-q4","kind":"quality"}]}]},{"id":"identity-and-equivalence","name":"Identity and Equivalence","description":"How a claim record is named, how aliases are held, and when two differently worded records are treated as the same proposition.","findings":[{"id":"claim-identifier","name":"Claim Identifier","description":"Assignment and resolution of the identifier that names this claim record, following the model's identity priority, with aliases for identifiers issued elsewhere and content digests kept only as secondary keys.","questions":[{"text":"Which authoritative master-system identifier, if any, already names this claim, and who issued it?","id":"cid-q1","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which governed global identifier or IRI resolves to this claim record and stays resolvable for its retention period?","id":"cid-q2","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Which alternative identifiers name the same claim in other systems, and are they aliases or distinct records?","id":"cid-q3","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Is any part of the identifier derived from a date, status or confidence value that would make it unstable?","id":"cid-q4","kind":"constraint"}]},{"id":"equivalence-restatement-and-translation","name":"Equivalence, Restatement and Translation","description":"The rules and recorded links that decide when a differently worded, summarised or translated statement is the same proposition, a restatement of it, or a genuinely different claim.","questions":[{"text":"Which other claim records state the same proposition in different words, and by what test was sameness established?","id":"ceq-q1","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Is this record a translation of another claim, and which record is the authoritative language version?","id":"ceq-q2","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Does a summarised or headline restatement drop scope qualifiers that the original claim carried?","id":"ceq-q3","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Which superficially similar claim was deliberately kept separate, and why is it not the same proposition?","id":"ceq-q4","kind":"exception"}]}]}]},{"id":"scope-qualification-and-uncertainty","name":"Scope, Qualification and Stated Uncertainty","description":"The conditions under which the claim is asserted to hold: over what subjects, where, when, under what assumptions, with what measured content, and with what calibrated confidence the asserter attached to it.","layers":[{"id":"scope-qualifiers","name":"Scope Qualifiers","description":"Subject range, spatial and temporal extent, and the conditions, assumptions and known defeaters that bound the assertion.","findings":[{"id":"subject-and-population-scope","name":"Subject and Population Scope","description":"The entities the claim ranges over: the named subject or the population definition with inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the level of aggregation at which the claim is asserted.","questions":[{"text":"Which entity or population is the claim about, identified rather than merely named in prose?","id":"sps-q1","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which inclusion and exclusion criteria delimit the population, and what is explicitly outside it?","id":"sps-q2","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"At which level of aggregation does the claim hold: individual, group, cohort or population average?","id":"sps-q3","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Does the claim name an identifiable natural person, and does that trigger sensitivity classification?","id":"sps-q4","kind":"privacy"}]},{"id":"spatial-and-temporal-scope","name":"Spatial and Temporal Scope","description":"Where and for what period the claim is asserted to hold, kept strictly separate from when it was asserted and when the record was captured.","questions":[{"text":"For which geographic or jurisdictional extent is the claim asserted to hold?","id":"sts-q1","kind":"spatial"},{"text":"Over which validity interval does the claim assert its content to be true?","id":"sts-q2","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"How does the validity interval differ from the assertion time and from the record ingestion time?","id":"sts-q3","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Is the claim asserted as timeless, as time-indexed, or as a forecast about a future interval?","id":"sts-q4","kind":"classification"}]},{"id":"conditions-assumptions-and-defeaters","name":"Conditions, Assumptions and Known Defeaters","description":"The scenario, background assumptions, ceteris paribus conditions and explicitly acknowledged defeating circumstances under which the claim is or is not asserted to hold.","questions":[{"text":"Under which scenario, model or set of background assumptions is the claim asserted?","id":"cad-q1","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which circumstances, if they obtained, would defeat the claim without falsifying it outright?","id":"cad-q2","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Which conditions are load-bearing such that changing them creates a different claim rather than a variant?","id":"cad-q3","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Are any assumptions implicit in the wording and not yet stated in structured fields?","id":"cad-q4","kind":"quality"}]}]},{"id":"quantification-and-uncertainty","name":"Quantified Content and Calibrated Uncertainty","description":"Measured content of quantitative claims and the calibrated confidence or likelihood term the asserter attached, with the traceable account that justifies it held elsewhere.","findings":[{"id":"quantitative-content-and-measurand","name":"Quantitative Content and Measurand","description":"For claims asserting a quantity: the measurand as defined, the value and unit, the stated uncertainty as a coverage interval with its coverage probability, and the comparison basis where the claim is comparative.","questions":[{"text":"What exactly is the measurand, defined precisely enough that two parties would measure the same thing?","id":"qcm-q1","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"What value and unit does the claim assert, and in which unit system?","id":"qcm-q2","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"What stated uncertainty accompanies the value, and at what coverage probability?","id":"qcm-q3","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Against which baseline, reference value or comparator is a comparative quantitative claim asserted?","id":"qcm-q4","kind":"relationship"}]},{"id":"calibrated-confidence-and-likelihood","name":"Calibrated Confidence and Likelihood","description":"The calibrated qualification the asserter attached to the claim, expressed with a registered scale term, plus the pointer to the traceable account that justifies it. The appraisal of the underlying evidence body is not held here.","questions":[{"text":"Which registered scale and term express the confidence attached to this claim, and who set it?","id":"ccl-q1","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Where the claim is probabilistic, which likelihood term or probability range is asserted?","id":"ccl-q2","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Which traceable account documents the reasoning behind the stated confidence, and where does it live?","id":"ccl-q3","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Is any evidence-body appraisal grade being carried here that should instead be dereferenced from the evidence model?","id":"ccl-q4","kind":"validation"}]}]}]},{"id":"assertion-provenance-and-ownership","name":"Assertion, Provenance and Ownership","description":"Who asserted the claim and with what standing, how the claim record came to exist, and who is accountable for it.","layers":[{"id":"assertion-acts","name":"Assertion Acts and Standing","description":"The act of asserting: claimant, commitment, appearance context, and whether the claimant held authority to assert.","findings":[{"id":"claimant-and-assertion-act","name":"Claimant and Assertion Act","description":"Who asserted the proposition, in what capacity and with what degree of commitment, together with the first and subsequent contexts in which the assertion appeared.","questions":[{"text":"Which agent asserted this proposition, identified rather than described by name alone?","id":"caa-q1","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"In what capacity did the claimant assert it: personally, on behalf of an organisation, or as a reported position?","id":"caa-q2","kind":"authority"},{"text":"How strong was the commitment: asserted outright, hypothesised, attributed to others, or quoted without endorsement?","id":"caa-q3","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Where did the claim first appear and where else has it appeared since?","id":"caa-q4","kind":"event"}]},{"id":"asserting-authority-and-mandate","name":"Asserting Authority and Mandate","description":"Whether the claimant held a recognised mandate to assert within a jurisdiction or domain, and the standing that mandate gives the claim, recorded without treating standing as truth.","questions":[{"text":"Under which mandate, remit or delegated authority did the claimant assert this proposition?","id":"aam-q1","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Within which jurisdiction or domain is that authority recognised, and where is it not?","id":"aam-q2","kind":"spatial"},{"text":"Is the claim official, advisory or unofficial in standing, and what follows from that classification?","id":"aam-q3","kind":"classification"},{"text":"What prevents authority standing from being read as a truth verdict on the claim?","id":"aam-q4","kind":"constraint"}]}]},{"id":"record-provenance","name":"Record Provenance, Ownership and Rights","description":"How the claim record itself was produced and derived, who owns and stewards it, and under what rights it may be reused.","findings":[{"id":"record-derivation-and-attribution","name":"Record Derivation and Attribution","description":"The lineage of the claim record: which source it was derived or quoted from, which primary source stands behind it, which agent or process extracted it, and which revision it succeeds.","questions":[{"text":"From which prior entity was this claim record derived, quoted or revised?","id":"rda-q1","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Which agent or automated process generated the record, and was extraction human, assisted or fully automated?","id":"rda-q2","kind":"process"},{"text":"Which activity produced the record, and when did it start and complete?","id":"rda-q3","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"What confidence attaches to the extraction itself, as distinct from the claim's own stated confidence?","id":"rda-q4","kind":"quality"}]},{"id":"ownership-stewardship-and-rights","name":"Ownership, Stewardship and Rights","description":"Which package owns the claim record, who stewards it, which roles may change it, and under what licence or rights the statement and the record may be reused.","questions":[{"text":"Which package owns this claim record and which named steward is accountable for it?","id":"osr-q1","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Which roles may change the statement, the scope qualifiers, the status and the sensitivity class?","id":"osr-q2","kind":"access"},{"text":"Under which licence or rights statement may the claim record and its canonical text be reused?","id":"osr-q3","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"What happens to ownership when the owning package is retired or transferred?","id":"osr-q4","kind":"lifecycle"}]}]}]},{"id":"claim-relations-and-external-bindings","name":"Claim Relations and External Bindings","description":"How claims stand to one another and how a claim binds to evidence, assessments and argument structures owned elsewhere.","layers":[{"id":"typed-claim-relations","name":"Typed Claim-to-Claim Relations","description":"Recorded relations between claim records: entailment and specialization, conflict, and preference or supersession, registered without being adjudicated.","findings":[{"id":"entailment-and-specialization","name":"Entailment and Specialization","description":"Relations where one claim's content stands to another as implication, generalization, specialization or presupposition, recorded as qualified edges with the ground on which the relation is asserted.","questions":[{"text":"Which other claims does this claim entail, and on what ground is entailment asserted?","id":"ens-q1","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which broader claim does this one specialize, and which narrower claims specialize it?","id":"ens-q2","kind":"composition"},{"text":"What does this claim presuppose that must hold for it to be evaluable at all?","id":"ens-q3","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which relation assertions are curator judgements rather than derived from a formal rule?","id":"ens-q4","kind":"quality"}]},{"id":"conflict-and-contradiction","name":"Conflict and Contradiction","description":"Registration that two claims stand in conflict, with the conflict type and the point of disagreement recorded, and with resolution explicitly not performed here.","questions":[{"text":"Which claims contradict this one, and is the conflict rebutting the content or undercutting its support?","id":"cfc-q1","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Is the apparent conflict genuine, or does it dissolve once scope qualifiers are compared?","id":"cfc-q2","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Who registered the conflict and when, and what status does registration confer on either claim?","id":"cfc-q3","kind":"event"},{"text":"Which system, outside this model, is responsible for resolving or adjudicating the conflict?","id":"cfc-q4","kind":"authority"}]},{"id":"preference-and-supersession","name":"Preference and Supersession","description":"Recorded orderings between claims: an asserted preference between competing claims, and the supersession chain by which a later claim replaces an earlier one.","questions":[{"text":"Which competing claim is preferred over which, and by whose criterion?","id":"pss-q1","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Which claim does this one supersede, and which claim supersedes it?","id":"pss-q2","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Does supersession change the earlier claim's status, or leave it valid for its original period?","id":"pss-q3","kind":"state"},{"text":"How are supersession chains kept acyclic and traversable to the current claim?","id":"pss-q4","kind":"constraint"}]}]},{"id":"external-bindings","name":"External Bindings","description":"Qualified references from a claim to evidence items, external assessments and argument structures, carrying binding parameters only.","findings":[{"id":"evidence-link-binding","name":"Evidence Link Binding","description":"The qualified reference from this claim to an evidence item in WM-KNW-008, carrying the target identifier, the binding role, directionality and a locally stated binding weight, and nothing describing the evidence itself.","questions":[{"text":"Which evidence items are bound to this claim, identified by resolvable WM-KNW-008 identifiers?","id":"elb-q1","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"In what role does each bound item stand: supporting, challenging, qualifying or merely cited?","id":"elb-q2","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"What weight or relevance does this claim's curator attach to the binding, and how is that distinguished from the evidence's own appraisal?","id":"elb-q3","kind":"quality"},{"text":"What happens to the binding when the referenced evidence record is revised, withdrawn or deleted by its owner?","id":"elb-q4","kind":"exception"}]},{"id":"assessment-and-review-reference","name":"Assessment and Review Reference","description":"References from this claim to externally issued assessments, fact-checks or reviews of it, recorded so that consumers can find them without this model owning ratings, reviewer workflow or review audit trails.","questions":[{"text":"Which external reviews or assessments name this claim as the item reviewed?","id":"arr-q1","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which rating scale did each review use, and is that scale interpretable outside its issuing system?","id":"arr-q2","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"What effect, if any, does a review reference have on this claim record's own status?","id":"arr-q3","kind":"state"},{"text":"Who owns the review's workflow, evidence and audit trail, and what may this model never copy from it?","id":"arr-q4","kind":"authority"}]},{"id":"argument-structure-role-reference","name":"Argument Structure Role Reference","description":"The record that this claim occupies a premise or conclusion role in an externally identified argument structure, mapped to the AIF I-node level, without any local representation of inference-scheme application.","questions":[{"text":"In which externally identified argument structures does this claim appear, and in what role?","id":"asr-q1","kind":"composition"},{"text":"How does the claim map to the AIF I-node level, and which node types are deliberately not represented here?","id":"asr-q2","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"What prevents an argument role reference from being read as an evaluated inference or an accepted conclusion?","id":"asr-q3","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which registered model will own argument-scheme definition and evaluation once it exists?","id":"asr-q4","kind":"decision"}]}]}]},{"id":"lifecycle-validation-and-record-governance","name":"Lifecycle, Validation and Record Governance","description":"The states a claim record passes through, how it is versioned and corrected, how its well-formedness and quality are checked, and how it is restricted, retained and disposed of.","layers":[{"id":"record-lifecycle","name":"Record Lifecycle and Change Control","description":"States and transitions of the claim record, the rule separating a new version from a new claim, and references to externally issued status notices.","findings":[{"id":"status-and-state-transitions","name":"Status and State Transitions","description":"The permitted states of a claim record, the transitions between them, who may perform each transition, and the terminal timestamps and successor references that transitions set.","questions":[{"text":"Which status does the record currently hold, and since which instant?","id":"sst-q1","kind":"state"},{"text":"Which transitions are permitted from the current status, and which roles may perform them?","id":"sst-q2","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Which preconditions must be satisfied before a record may leave draft and be treated as asserted?","id":"sst-q3","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"What does a terminal status set on the record, and what must remain readable afterwards?","id":"sst-q4","kind":"retention"}]},{"id":"versioning-and-change-control","name":"Versioning and Change Control","description":"The rule distinguishing a version patch from a new claim, the immutability of asserted statement text, and the version manifest that lets any prior state of the record be reconstructed.","questions":[{"text":"Which changes are version patches to this record and which create a new claim linked by supersession?","id":"vcc-q1","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Which fields are immutable once the record is asserted, and how are typographic corrections handled?","id":"vcc-q2","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How is a specific prior version of the record cited and retrieved?","id":"vcc-q3","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which precondition must a patch declare so that concurrent edits cannot silently overwrite each other?","id":"vcc-q4","kind":"validation"}]},{"id":"retraction-correction-and-status-notices","name":"Retraction, Correction and Status Notices","description":"References to notices issued outside this model — retractions, removals, corrections and expressions of concern — and the local status effect they trigger, with issuance and propagation remaining with the issuing publisher or authority.","questions":[{"text":"Which externally issued notice affects this claim, of what type, and who issued it?","id":"rcn-q1","kind":"event"},{"text":"Which local status change does the notice trigger, and is the change automatic or reviewed?","id":"rcn-q2","kind":"state"},{"text":"How must a claim affected by a notice be displayed to downstream consumers?","id":"rcn-q3","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Who is responsible for issuing, publishing and propagating the notice itself, as opposed to referencing it here?","id":"rcn-q4","kind":"authority"}]}]},{"id":"validation-and-quality","name":"Validation and Quality","description":"Structural well-formedness of the claim record and the quality signals that indicate whether it is specific and testable enough to be useful.","findings":[{"id":"well-formedness-quality-and-testability","name":"Well-Formedness, Quality and Testability","description":"The shapes and required-field profiles the record must satisfy, the severity grading of failures, and the quality signals — specificity, ambiguity, unresolved scope, testability — that gate promotion. Shapes are owned here; execution is not.","questions":[{"text":"Which shapes and required-field profile apply to this record given its claim type?","id":"wqt-q1","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Which constraint failures are violations that block promotion and which are warnings that only annotate?","id":"wqt-q2","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which quality signals indicate that the statement is too vague, ambiguous or under-scoped to be testable?","id":"wqt-q3","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Which component executes validation, and what does this model own as against that executor?","id":"wqt-q4","kind":"process"}]}]},{"id":"access-sensitivity-and-retention","name":"Access, Sensitivity and Retention","description":"Classification of claim records by sensitivity, expression of access and use conditions, and the retention, tombstoning and disposition rules for the records this model owns.","findings":[{"id":"sensitivity-and-access-classification","name":"Sensitivity and Access Classification","description":"Classification of a claim record by the harm its statement could cause — unverified allegations, personal data, embargoed findings — and the expression of the resulting access and use conditions as a policy, with enforcement performed elsewhere.","questions":[{"text":"Which sensitivity class applies to this record, and which feature of the statement drives it?","id":"sac-q1","kind":"privacy"},{"text":"Which permissions, prohibitions and duties are expressed over this record, for which parties?","id":"sac-q2","kind":"access"},{"text":"Under what constraint does an embargo lift, and what changes when it does?","id":"sac-q3","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Which component evaluates and enforces these expressed conditions, and what does this model explicitly not do?","id":"sac-q4","kind":"security"}]},{"id":"retention-and-disposition","name":"Retention and Disposition","description":"How long claim records are kept, what a tombstone must carry when a record is terminated or redacted, and which party owns execution of erasure across stores and downstream copies.","questions":[{"text":"How long is a claim record retained after it reaches a terminal status, and on what trigger?","id":"rdd-q1","kind":"retention"},{"text":"Which fields must a tombstone carry so that downstream copies remain reconcilable?","id":"rdd-q2","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Under what narrow conditions may statement text be redacted rather than retained?","id":"rdd-q3","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Which party executes erasure across stores, indexes, caches and downstream copies?","id":"rdd-q4","kind":"authority"}]}]}]},{"id":"interoperability-and-agent-operation","name":"Interoperability and Agent Operation","description":"How claim records project onto external vocabularies without claiming conformance, and how an agent bootstraps into the model and exchanges records safely.","layers":[{"id":"alignment-projection-and-bootstrap","name":"Alignment, Projection and Bootstrap","description":"Vocabulary crosswalks with lossiness declarations and statement-level projection choices, plus the agent bootstrap contract and exchange profile.","findings":[{"id":"vocabulary-alignments-and-projections","name":"Vocabulary Alignments and Projections","description":"Declared mappings from claim record fields to external vocabularies, the statement-level identity choice in each projection, and the explicit record of what each projection loses and where the standards conflict.","questions":[{"text":"Which external vocabulary terms does each claim record field map to, and is the mapping exact, broader or narrower?","id":"vap-q1","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"In a graph projection, is the statement asserted or only named, and which construct expresses that?","id":"vap-q2","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which fields does each target profile fail to carry, and is that profile therefore declared lossy?","id":"vap-q3","kind":"validation"},{"text":"Where do the aligned standards disagree about what a claim is, and how is the disagreement recorded rather than papered over?","id":"vap-q4","kind":"definition"}]},{"id":"agent-bootstrap-and-exchange-profile","name":"Agent Bootstrap and Exchange Profile","description":"The bootstrap contract an agent reads before operating on claim records, the order in which it must read it, and the minimum interchange profile that any exchange of claim records must satisfy.","questions":[{"text":"Which entry document must an agent read first, and what fields must it contain before any operation is attempted?","id":"abe-q1","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"In what order must an agent read the specification, storage, interface and process references?","id":"abe-q2","kind":"process"},{"text":"Which fields constitute the minimum interchange profile that any exchange of a claim record must carry?","id":"abe-q3","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Which referenced models must an agent consult before it dereferences an evidence, review or argument identifier?","id":"abe-q4","kind":"composition"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Register and normalise a claim statement.","Qualify scope and state calibrated confidence.","Bind evidence references and assert relations to other claims.","Transition claim status with recorded authority."],"mustNot":["Present an asserted claim as established fact.","Merge several propositions into one record.","Silently reinterpret a claim when a scheme changes.","Run verification or adjudication within this model.","Attribute a claim to a person who did not make it."],"requiresHuman":["Deciding on contested claims with legal or reputational consequences.","Retracting a published claim."]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Claims about people can damage reputations; attribution must be accurate.","Recording a claim is not endorsing it, and interfaces must make this clear.","Misinformation can spread if claim status is unclear."],"affectedParties":["People who make claims","People claims are about","Readers relying on the register"]},"owners":{"steward":"The adopting Dimension MUST name one owning package for the claim register and one accountable claim steward before any record is promoted out of draft; an unowned register may hold drafts only.","roles":[{"name":"Claim Steward","responsibilities":["Curate canonical statements and enforce the one-record-one-proposition rule","Assign claim type and populate the scope qualifiers the type requires","Promote records out of draft only when validation and quality gates pass","Record restatement, translation and equivalence links with the test applied"]},{"name":"Assertion Registrar","responsibilities":["Record claimant identity, capacity, commitment level and appearance locators accurately","Record asserting authority, mandate reference and standing without treating standing as truth","Maintain the separation between assertion time, validity interval and ingestion time","Correct attribution errors promptly and record the correction"]},{"name":"Register Owner and Model Governor","responsibilities":["Own the claim-type scheme, uncertainty scale registry, lifecycle state scheme, shapes package and crosswalk, including their serials and digests","Approve breaking profile changes and publish migration instructions","Adjudicate whether a change is a patch or a new claim when stewards disagree","Maintain the referenced-model contracts and raise boundary violations to the registry"]},{"name":"Data Protection and Access Officer","responsibilities":["Classify sensitivity for records naming identifiable persons, unproven allegations and embargoed findings","Express access and use conditions as declarative policy and keep them current","Own the disposition schedule and approve any redaction of statement text","Delegate evaluation and enforcement to the adopting Dimension's platform and confirm execution of disposition"]},{"name":"Interoperability Engineer","responsibilities":["Maintain crosswalk editions and declare per-profile lossiness","Determine the assertion mode for graph projections and guard against promoting an unasserted reifier to an asserted graph","Monitor upstream standard changes and record newly discovered inter-standard conflicts","Maintain the minimum interchange profile and the AGENTS.md bootstrap contract"]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-KNW-001","type":"child","note":"Inherit generic knowledge-asset identity, register governance, stewardship and licensing from the parent so this model specializes only what makes a record truth-apt. The separation of an assertion from the record metadata about it, as in PROV and the nanopublication pattern, is what makes this inheritance clean rather than duplicative."},{"target":"WM-KNW-008","type":"references","note":"Carry the evidence item identifier, binding role, directionality and a locally stated binding weight so a claim can be shown as supported or challenged. Evidence description, provenance, appraisal grades and evidence lifecycle remain owned by the target and are dereferenced, never copied."},{"target":"W3C PROV-O (prov:Entity, wasAttributedTo, wasDerivedFrom, hadPrimarySource, wasRevisionOf, invalidatedAtTime, prov:Bundle)","type":"aligned","note":"Express record attribution, derivation, primary source, revision and invalidation using established provenance terms. Generic Activity and Agent modelling and provenance query semantics remain with PROV; this is alignment, not a conformance claim."},{"target":"schema.org Claim and ClaimReview","type":"aligned","note":"Map canonical statement text, appearance and firstAppearance, and express reviews of a claim as external ClaimReview references. schema.org defines no formal claim-to-claim relations, so the model's typed relation layer is additional and must be declared as such in the crosswalk."},{"target":"W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0 claim (subject-property-value)","type":"aligned","note":"Align the normalized statement form with the VC subject-property-value structure so claims can be carried in credentials. Issuer proof, credentialStatus and validity windows belong to credential transport and must never be read as claim truth or claim lifecycle."},{"target":"Argument Interchange Format (AIF) upper ontology","type":"aligned","note":"Map a claim record to the AIF I-node level so claims can participate in argument graphs. Applications of rules of inference, conflict and preference (RA, CA, PA) and schematic form nodes stay with the argumentation model."},{"target":"Nanopublication head / assertion / provenance / publicationInfo graph pattern","type":"aligned","note":"Adopt the separation of the minimal assertion from its provenance and publication metadata as the reference projection for graph exchange, and adopt the guidance to keep assertions minimal as the basis of the atomicity rule."},{"target":"W3C RDF 1.2 triple terms, reifying triples and named graphs","type":"aligned","note":"Provide statement-level identity in graph projections and preserve the distinction between naming a statement and asserting it, so that an unasserted reifier is never silently promoted to an asserted assertion graph."},{"target":"W3C SHACL shapes and validation reports","type":"references","note":"Publish the model's shapes and required-field profiles for execution by any conformant processor. Validation execution, processor failures and run logs are owned by the processor and its operator, not by this model."},{"target":"W3C ODRL Information Model 2.2","type":"references","note":"Express permissions, prohibitions, duties and constraints over claim records declaratively. ODRL defines no enforcement or evaluation mechanism, so no decisioning, enforcement or policy-decision logging is claimed here."},{"target":"IPCC calibrated uncertainty language (evidence and agreement, confidence and likelihood scales)","type":"aligned","note":"Bind the stated confidence and likelihood terms on a claim to a published calibrated scale with a traceable account, and adopt the requirement to specify variables, region, period and conditions as the basis of the scope-qualifier layer."},{"target":"JCGM 200:2012 VIM (measurand, measurement uncertainty, coverage interval, metrological traceability)","type":"aligned","note":"Use agreed metrology terms for the quantitative content of measurement claims. Measurement procedure, calibration and the metrological traceability chain remain with a metrology or observation model."},{"target":"NISO RP-45-2024 CREC retraction, removal and expression-of-concern metadata","type":"aligned","note":"Align the shape of externally issued status-notice references and the requirement that an affected item's status be visible to readers. Issuance, publication and propagation of notices stay with publishers, aggregators and hosts."},{"target":"IETF RFC 3339 date-time","type":"aligned","note":"Constrain every time value in the model to a date-time with seconds and an explicit offset or Z, and preserve the RFC's distinction between an unknown local offset and UTC."},{"target":"FAIR Guiding Principles F1, I3 and R1.2","type":"aligned","note":"Require globally unique persistent identifiers for claim records, qualified rather than bare references for claim relations and evidence bindings, and detailed record provenance."},{"target":"Argumentation / inference-scheme model (not yet registered - declared gap)","type":"references","note":"Placeholder for the sibling that must own argument-scheme definition, inference, conflict and preference rule application and any evaluation of argument acceptability. Until it is registered this remains a declared gap; no local ownership of those semantics is asserted and only a role reference is held."},{"target":"WM-KNW-008 Evidence / Citation","type":"neighbor","note":"This model carries the evidence reference, the binding role (supports, challenges, qualifies), directionality and a locally stated binding weight. It never carries the evidence item's description, provenance, appraisal grade or lifecycle; those are dereferenced from WM-KNW-008 and are never copied into a claim record."},{"target":"Argumentation / inference-scheme model (not yet registered)","type":"neighbor","note":"A claim corresponds to the AIF I-node level. Applications of rules of inference (RA), conflict (CA) and preference (PA), argument-scheme definitions and any evaluation of argument acceptability belong to an argumentation model. This model records only that a claim occupies a premise or conclusion role in an externally identified argument structure."},{"target":"Assessment / fact-check record (schema.org ClaimReview)","type":"neighbor","note":"This model holds the reviewable claim and a reference to reviews of it. The review's rating scale, reviewer identity workflow, publication and audit trail are owned by the reviewing system; a review reference is never read as a truth value on the claim record."},{"target":"W3C PROV provenance model","type":"neighbor","note":"PROV terms are used as alignment for attribution, derivation, revision and invalidation of the claim record. This model does not own generic Activity/Agent modelling, provenance-of-provenance bundles or provenance query semantics."},{"target":"Verifiable Credentials and assertion transport","type":"neighbor","note":"A VC claim is a subject-property-value assertion carried inside a credential secured by proof. This model treats the proposition independently of transport: credential validity, status and cryptographic verification are owned by credential models and must not be interpreted as claim truth or claim lifecycle."},{"target":"Metrology / observation models","type":"neighbor","note":"A quantitative claim references a measurand, a value with unit and a stated coverage interval. The measurement procedure, instrument, calibration and metrological traceability chain belong to a measurement or observation model."},{"target":"Access-policy enforcement platforms (ODRL evaluators)","type":"neighbor","note":"This model expresses sensitivity classes and ODRL policies about claim records. ODRL is a policy expression language that defines no enforcement or evaluation semantics, and none is claimed here; decisioning and its logs belong to the adopting Dimension's platform."},{"target":"WM-KNW-001 (parent knowledge model)","type":"neighbor","note":"Generic knowledge-asset identity, register governance, stewardship and licensing are inherited through the CHILD link. This model specializes only what makes a record truth-apt: proposition, qualification, assertion and claim relations."},{"target":"WM-KNW-001","type":"parent"}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative master-system identifier issued by the system of record for the claim population, such as a standards-body clause or provision identifier, a regulator's decision reference, a registry claim number or a publisher-assigned claim key.","Governed global identifier or IRI, such as a persistent HTTP IRI under a controlled namespace, a DOI, or a content-derived global name issued by a governed publication network.","UUID or ULID minted by the adopting Dimension, used only when no master or governed global identifier exists, and replaced by an alias rather than a new record if one is later discovered.","Content digest over the canonical normalized statement, permitted only as a secondary equivalence key and never as the record's primary identifier, because one proposition may have several texts and one text may express different claims in different contexts."]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":["A claim has a statement, an asserting party, a time, a scope and a status.","Often confused with evidence, a fact-check verdict, a fact in a database and the document that carries it."]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Register claim: Create a claim record in draft from an observed or reported assertion, capturing the canonical statement, language, claim type, claimant and the two distinct timestamps.","Normalize claim statement: Produce the canonical serialization and optional structured form of the statement so that equivalence comparison and digesting are deterministic.","Assign claim identity: Select and bind the record's primary identifier by identity priority, attaching aliases for identifiers issued by other systems.","Qualify claim scope: Attach subject, population, spatial, temporal, condition and measurand qualifiers that bound the assertion, and flag scope that remains unresolved.","State calibrated confidence: Record the calibrated confidence or likelihood term the asserter attached, bound to a registered scale version, with a pointer to the traceable account that justifies it.","Bind evidence reference: Attach a qualified reference from the claim to an evidence item, carrying the binding role, directionality and locally stated weight and nothing else.","Assert claim relation: Record a typed relation between two claim records — entailment, specialization, presupposition, conflict, preference or supersession — with its ground and asserter.","Transition claim status: Move a claim record between permitted lifecycle states, setting effective and terminal timestamps and any successor reference.","Record status notice reference: Attach a reference to an externally issued retraction, removal, correction or expression-of-concern notice and apply the declared local status effect.","Validate claim record: Check a claim record against the published shapes package and the claim-type required-field profile, producing a severity-graded conformance report.","Classify sensitivity and express access conditions: Assign a sensitivity class to a claim record and express the resulting permissions, prohibitions and duties as a declarative policy.","Project claim record: Emit a claim record in a target exchange profile using the crosswalk edition in force, declaring what the projection drops.","Dispose claim record: Apply the disposition schedule to a terminated record, writing a tombstone, redacting statement text where an erasure obligation requires it, and notifying dependents."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"required","items":["Misattribution of statements.","Spread of false claims shown without status.","Lost context when scope is dropped."]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["schema.org Claim and ClaimReview.","W3C PROV-O.","W3C Verifiable Credentials.","Nanopublications."]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["EU/EEA: accuracy, rectification and erasure duties over personal data embedded in claim statements are assumed to apply, and the redaction and tombstone rules are designed to accommodate them; the legal text could not be retrieved by the research client and this is therefore an assumption, not a cited requirement.","Defamation and unproven-allegation exposure varies materially by jurisdiction. The restricted-read default for unverified claims naming identifiable persons is a conservative design choice, not a cited legal requirement, and the adopting Dimension must confirm it against local law.","NISO CREC is a US-originating recommended practice with international participation and is oriented to scholarly publishing; adoption by non-scholarly publishers, regulators or media organisations is not assumed.","IPCC calibrated language is authoritative within climate assessment. Reusing its confidence and likelihood scales in other domains is an alignment choice the adopting Dimension must declare explicitly, since the probability ranges carry assessment-specific conventions.","Canonical statements are assumed to carry a BCP 47 language tag. Normalization behaviour for right-to-left scripts, non-Latin scripts and languages without whitespace word boundaries is left to the adopting Dimension, and the NFC rule may need supplementing there.","Identifier namespace persistence assumes the owning package can maintain resolution for the full retention period; in jurisdictions or organisations without that capability, a governed external identifier authority should be used instead of local minting."]}},"sources":[{"title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)"},{"title":"Claim - Schema.org Type","url":"https://schema.org/Claim","note":"Schema.org community (W3C Schema.org Community Group)"},{"title":"ClaimReview - Schema.org Type","url":"https://schema.org/ClaimReview","note":"Schema.org community (W3C Schema.org Community Group)"},{"title":"Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)"},{"title":"The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) Specification","url":"https://www.arg-tech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/aif-spec.pdf","note":"ARG-tech, Centre for Argument Technology, University of Dundee"},{"title":"Nanopublication Guidelines (nschema)","url":"https://github.com/Nanopublication/Guidelines/blob/master/nschema.html","note":"Nanopublication community (Nanopublication/Guidelines repository)"},{"title":"RFC 3339: Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)"},{"title":"Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)"},{"title":"RDF 1.2 Concepts and Abstract Syntax","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)"},{"title":"Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties","url":"https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf","note":"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"},{"title":"JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd edition","url":"https://www.bipm.org/en/doi/10.59161/jcgm200-2012","note":"Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) / Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM)"},{"title":"NISO RP-45-2024, Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC)","url":"https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-45-2024-crec","note":"National Information Standards Organization (NISO)"},{"title":"ODRL Information Model 2.2","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/odrl-model/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)"},{"title":"FAIR Principles","url":"https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/","note":"GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office"}],"openQuestions":["Register an owner for argument-scheme definition and for the application and evaluation of inference, conflict and preference rules, then replace the AIF I-node role-reference gap with a real in-registry target and delete the placeholder composition link.","Obtain a retrievable primary legal citation (EUR-Lex Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or equivalent) for accuracy, rectification and erasure duties so the privacy dimension moves from regional assumption to cited requirement, and resolve how erasure interacts with append-only version manifests.","Verify JCGM 200:2012 VIM terms (measurand, measurement result, measurement uncertainty, coverage interval, coverage probability, metrological traceability) from full text rather than the BIPM catalogue description, and keep the metrology link declared as alignment until that succeeds.","Search for, or formally propose and publish, a normative registry of claim-to-claim relation types; the current entailment/specialization/presupposition/conflict/preference/supersession codes are a design synthesis of AIF conflict and preference semantics with PROV revision semantics.","Add operational functions in the next provider pass for equivalence/restatement/translation linking, assessment and review reference binding, and argument-structure role binding, all of which are findings without functions today.","Determine normalization behaviour beyond NFC for right-to-left scripts, non-Latin scripts and languages without whitespace word boundaries, and define whether cross-language equivalence thresholds stay entirely Dimension-owned.","Decide whether deontic and normative claim content needs a dedicated model rather than the single modality field, including the relation between a norm asserted as claim content and ODRL policy expressed about the record.","The IPCC uncertainty guidance note (SRC-010) was read from a mirrored copy because the canonical ipcc.ch URL returned HTTP 403 to the research client; the cited URL is the canonical location and the content was verified against the mirror.","The JCGM 200:2012 PDF did not extract cleanly; VIM term coverage (measurand, measurement result, measurement uncertainty, coverage interval, coverage probability, metrological traceability) was confirmed from the BIPM catalogue description rather than full-text extraction, so the metrology link is declared an alignment and not a conformance claim.","EUR-Lex requests for Regulation (EU) 2016/679 were blocked, so data-protection duties are recorded as regional assumptions rather than cited requirements; no GDPR source is cited.","No normative registry of claim-to-claim relation types was found. The proposed relation codes synthesise AIF conflict and preference semantics with PROV revision semantics and are a design proposal, not a standard.","The commitment-level and illocutionary-force typology in the assertion-act finding has no cited normative source and is a design proposal drawing on the schema.org distinction between a claim and its review context.","Deontic and normative claims (obligations, permissions, recommendations) are covered only by the modality field; a full normative-statement model, including the relation between a norm and its enforcement, is not attempted here and ODRL is cited for policy about records rather than for norms as claim content.","Thresholds for cross-language claim equivalence, and any automated similarity method for deciding sameness, are left to the adopting Dimension; only the requirement to record the test applied is specified.","Aggregation of many claims into positions, consensus statements or knowledge-base states is not modelled; it would require the unregistered argumentation owner or a separate aggregate model.","The AIF specification PDF returned an imprecise automated summary on first extraction; RA, CA and PA node meanings were re-verified as applications of rules of inference, conflict and preference before use."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-knw-007-claim-proposition/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-knw-007-claim-proposition/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-knw-007"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-knw-007-claim-proposition/spec.yaml","ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-knw-007-claim-proposition.json"],"providers":["Claude"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-09-02T16:23:15Z","builder":"tools/build_cards.py@1.0.0"},"completeness":{"sections":{"classifiers":"filled","whatItIs":"filled","purpose":"filled","distinguishingFeatures":"filled","structure":"filled","agentConduct":"filled","ethics":"filled","owners":"filled","relations":"filled","interaction.identity":"filled","interaction.properties":"not-applicable","interaction.recognition":"filled","interaction.capabilities":"filled","interaction.hazards":"filled","interaction.interfaces":"filled","interaction.context":"filled","sources":"filled"},"notes":{"interaction.properties":"Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.","_supplement":"Sections authored in card supplement 1.0.0 by Claude (Opus 5.5) (2026-10-05, unreviewed). Written from the published specification and established practice in the field; no new sources were read. Unreviewed."},"score":1.0}}