{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-knw-014","code":"wm-knw-014-issue-problem","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-knw-014-issue-problem/","name":"Issue / Problem","alternateNames":[],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.3.1-research.1","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Information and virtual systems","entryKind":"aggregate","plane":"","domain":["INF.KNW.ISS"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.INF.KNW.ISS","tags":["issue","problem","inf.knw.iss"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"An Issue / Problem record asserts that some observed state of a subject diverges from a stated expectation (requirement, specification, norm, target or design intent) and that the divergence is recognized as needing disposition. The model covers the discrepancy assertion itself, its identity, classification and grading, its recognition context in time and place, its evidence and provenance, its impact and causal analysis, its lifecycle states and disposition, its relationships to other issues and subjects, and the governance, confidentiality, assurance and retention context of the record. It deliberately stops at the boundary of the work: corrective and preventive actions, changes, incident response execution, verification execution, enforcement and audit trails are referenced, never reproduced. The model is storage- and interface-neutral: tracker rows, occurrence databases, nonconformance reports, SARIF results, Markdown files and MongoDB documents are projections of the same semantics.","purpose":"Give an agent the format-neutral context needed to recognize, record, classify, analyse, relate, govern and hand off a recognized discrepancy between an observed state and a required or expected state, without owning the work, change, enforcement or audit trail that resolves it.","scope":{"in":["Assertion of a discrepancy: observed state, expected state and the reference norm or requirement against which the divergence is judged","Identity of the issue record, duplicate resolution, merge/canonical selection and correspondence with identifiers in other systems","Typology and grading: issue type, category codes, severity, priority, urgency and assessed impact","Recognition context: who or what detected the discrepancy, through which channel, under which environment and configuration","Separated time anchors for occurrence, detection, report submission and record ingestion","Evidence set, reproducibility and the provenance and confidence of every asserted claim on the record","Extent of impact, affected subjects, occurrence aggregation and recurrence semantics","Causal analysis outcomes: hypothesis, proximate and root cause, contributing factors, and known-error designation","Documented workaround and mitigation knowledge held as knowledge, not as executed work","Lifecycle states, permitted transitions, triage acceptance, disposition categories and closure criteria","Relationships between issues and to incidents, requirements, assets, tests, actions and changes","Governance context: accountable roles, competent decision authority, waiver/concession reference, sensitivity, reporter protection, retention class and hold status","Interoperability crosswalks to external issue, defect, nonconformance and occurrence vocabularies"],"out":["Execution, scheduling and tracking of corrective, preventive or containment actions, which belong to WM-ACT-021 and may be referenced without containment or lifecycle inheritance","Change request implementation and release semantics, which belong to a change model aligned to OSLC Change Management","Incident detection, triage and response operations, which belong to an incident/occurrence model","Risk identification, analysis and treatment for events that have not been realized","Runtime evaluation or enforcement of validation rules, routing rules or policy: this model declares constraints, an external evaluator or engine applies them","Audit-trail generation and retention of who did what to the record, which belongs to the adopting Dimension's audit-log service","Governance of classification schemes, taxonomies and code lists themselves (for example ADREP/ECCAIRS, CWE); this model binds to them","Verification and validation execution proving an action was effective; only the reference and acceptance status are carried","Physical or logical deletion execution and destruction certification, which belongs to a records retention and disposition model","Party, organization and role master data","Specification, requirement and norm authoring and versioning","Security vulnerability enumeration, scoring and coordinated disclosure workflow, which is a specialized sibling model"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"Incident / occurrence event","distinction":"An incident is an unplanned event or interruption that occurred at a point in time; an issue is the recognized discrepancy that one or more incidents may evidence. NIST SP 800-61r3 scopes incident response as an operational cycle inside cybersecurity risk management, and Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 treats an occurrence report as an event record with its own transmission deadlines. The issue record references occurrences; it does not carry their response lifecycle."},{"neighbor":"Risk register entry","distinction":"A risk is an unrealized possibility carried for treatment; an issue is a recognized, already-observed divergence. Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 applies a safety risk classification to occurrences that have already happened, which shows risk scoring can be an attribute of an issue without making the issue a risk. Forward-looking likelihood modelling stays in the risk model."},{"neighbor":"Corrective and preventive action (CAPA)","distinction":"21 CFR 820.100 separates investigating the cause of nonconformities from identifying, implementing and verifying the action. The issue owns the discrepancy, the investigation outcome and the disposition decision context; the action model owns action definition, execution and effectiveness verification. The issue carries only the reference and the acceptance status."},{"neighbor":"Service case / work item reference (WM-ACT-021)","distinction":"OSLC Change Management models ChangeRequest, Task and ReviewTask as trackable executable activities with their own state predicates. Assignment, effort, scheduling and workflow execution belong there. This model retains the discrepancy semantics and links to the change request rather than duplicating its workflow."},{"neighbor":"Requirement / specification / norm","distinction":"The expected state that makes a discrepancy a discrepancy is authored and versioned elsewhere. The issue carries a resolvable reference to the norm clause and the norm version in force at recognition time, not the norm text."},{"neighbor":"Evidence, observation and measurement records","distinction":"Tool runs, logs, samples, images and measurement results are entities with their own provenance. SARIF models a result inside a run with its own artifact and provenance objects. The issue references evidence and states its sufficiency; it does not become the evidence store."},{"neighbor":"Security vulnerability record","distinction":"A vulnerability is a specialized weakness class with registry-governed identifiers, scoring systems and coordinated disclosure states. It behaves as a specialization of an issue but carries machinery this generic model must not absorb; SARIF keeps taxonomy membership in taxa references rather than in the result itself."},{"neighbor":"Records retention and disposition policy","distinction":"Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 places retention, de-identification and repository transfer duties on designated bodies. This model declares the retention class, hold state and tombstone marker on its own records but does not own destruction execution or certification."},{"neighbor":"Classification scheme / taxonomy registry","distinction":"ADREP/ECCAIRS compatibility is mandated for aviation occurrence systems and SARIF results point at external taxa. Code list governance, versioning and deprecation stay in the classifier registry; the issue binds a code plus the scheme identifier and version."},{"neighbor":"Complaint or customer feedback record","distinction":"21 CFR 820.100 lists complaints as one of several quality data sources analysed to detect nonconformities. A complaint is an intake channel artifact; it may cause an issue to be registered but is not itself the issue."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["Records a recognised discrepancy between observed and required states, not the work that fixes it.","Unlike a risk, it has already occurred; unlike an incident, it is not an operational response case.","Separates occurrence, detection, submission and ingestion times.","Protects reporters by default."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"issue-definition-and-identity","name":"Discrepancy definition, identity and classification","description":"Establishes what the record asserts, how it is uniquely and stably identified across systems and duplicates, and how it is typed and graded.","layers":[{"id":"discrepancy-definition","name":"Discrepancy assertion and record identity","description":"The propositional content of the issue — observed versus expected against a named norm — and the identity apparatus that keeps the record addressable and de-duplicated.","findings":[{"id":"discrepancy-statement","name":"Observed state, expected state and reference norm","description":"The atomic assertion that makes something an issue: what was observed, what was required or expected, which authored norm or requirement establishes the expectation, and the version of that norm in force when the divergence was recognized.","questions":[{"text":"What observed state or behaviour is asserted, and in what terms is it expressed?","id":"q-ds-observed","kind":"definition"},{"text":"What expected or required state is the observation being compared against?","id":"q-ds-expected","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which authored requirement, specification or norm clause establishes that expectation, and which version of it was in force at recognition?","id":"q-ds-norm","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Is the divergence asserted as a categorical failure to conform or as a quantified deviation?","id":"q-ds-divergence","kind":"classification"}]},{"id":"issue-record-identity","name":"Issue identity, correlation and duplicate resolution","description":"How the issue record is named, which identifier is authoritative, how correlation across runs and systems is achieved without conflating identity, and how duplicates are detected, merged and superseded.","questions":[{"text":"Which system of record issues the authoritative identifier for this issue, and what is that identifier?","id":"q-id-authoritative","kind":"identity"},{"text":"What stable correlation value lets the same discrepancy be recognized across repeated detections or tool runs?","id":"q-id-correlation","kind":"identity"},{"text":"On what criteria is another record judged a duplicate rather than a related or recurring issue?","id":"q-id-duplicate","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"When records are merged, which record survives as canonical and how is the derivation of the retired record preserved?","id":"q-id-merge","kind":"provenance"}]}]},{"id":"issue-classification","name":"Typology and grading","description":"Assignment of issue type and category codes from governed schemes, and of severity, priority, urgency and impact grades that drive routing and authority.","findings":[{"id":"issue-typology","name":"Issue type and category coding","description":"The kind of discrepancy (defect, nonconformance, service problem, occurrence, enhancement gap, process deviation) and its category codes bound to externally governed classification schemes.","questions":[{"text":"What kind of discrepancy is this, and does the chosen kind change which lifecycle or authority applies?","id":"q-ty-kind","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which external classification scheme supplies the category codes, and at which scheme version were they assigned?","id":"q-ty-scheme","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"May an issue carry codes from more than one scheme simultaneously, and how are conflicting codes reconciled?","id":"q-ty-multi","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"What evidence justifies reclassifying an issue after registration, and is the prior classification retained?","id":"q-ty-reclass","kind":"decision"}]},{"id":"severity-priority-and-impact-grading","name":"Severity, priority, urgency and assessed impact","description":"Independent grading axes: intrinsic seriousness of the discrepancy, the handling order assigned to it, and the assessed consequence, including the risk classification that determines which authority must review it.","questions":[{"text":"Which grading axes are carried separately, and what is the permitted value set of each?","id":"q-sv-axes","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Which grade threshold escalates the issue to a higher review authority or to an external body?","id":"q-sv-authority","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Must an assigned risk or severity classification be reviewed and endorsed by a party other than the assigner?","id":"q-sv-endorsement","kind":"validation"},{"text":"On what stated basis was the grade derived, so that a later reader can challenge it?","id":"q-sv-basis","kind":"evidence"}]}]}]},{"id":"recognition-evidence-and-provenance","name":"Recognition context, evidence and provenance","description":"How, when, where and by whom the discrepancy came to be known, what evidence supports it, and how confident and attributable each assertion is.","layers":[{"id":"recognition-context","name":"Detection, time and situation","description":"The circumstances of recognition: origin and channel, the separate time anchors that must not be collapsed, and the environment and configuration in which the divergence appeared.","findings":[{"id":"detection-and-report-origin","name":"Detector, reporting channel and obligation basis","description":"Who or what recognized the discrepancy, through which intake channel it entered, and whether the report was made under a mandatory obligation or voluntarily.","questions":[{"text":"Who or what detected the discrepancy — a person, an automated tool, an audit, a customer complaint or a monitoring service?","id":"q-dt-detector","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Was the report submitted under a mandatory reporting obligation or voluntarily, and which rule creates the obligation?","id":"q-dt-obligation","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Through which intake channel did the report arrive, and what minimum data set did that channel require?","id":"q-dt-channel","kind":"process"},{"text":"Which quality-data source category does the origin fall into for periodic source analysis?","id":"q-dt-source-class","kind":"classification"}]},{"id":"temporal-anchors","name":"Separated time anchors and reporting deadlines","description":"The distinct instants that must be recorded independently — when the divergence occurred or began, when it was detected, when it was reported, when the record was ingested, and when onward transmission was due — together with their timezone discipline.","questions":[{"text":"Which distinct time anchors are recorded, and which of them are unknown rather than absent?","id":"q-tm-anchors","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Is the divergence a point event or an interval, and if an interval, what bounds its start and end?","id":"q-tm-interval","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"What externally imposed deadline applies to reporting or onward transmission of this record, and against which anchor is it measured?","id":"q-tm-deadline","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How is a timestamp represented when the instant is known in UTC but the local offset is not?","id":"q-tm-offset","kind":"interoperability"}]},{"id":"situational-and-configuration-context","name":"Location, environment and configuration at recognition","description":"Where the divergence appeared — physical or organizational location, operating environment, and the configuration or version state of the affected subject at the moment of recognition.","questions":[{"text":"At what physical, organizational or logical location was the divergence observed?","id":"q-sc-location","kind":"spatial"},{"text":"What configuration, build, batch or serial state of the affected subject was in force when the divergence appeared?","id":"q-sc-configuration","kind":"state"},{"text":"What operating or process conditions were present that a reproduction attempt would need to recreate?","id":"q-sc-environment","kind":"composition"}]}]},{"id":"evidence-and-provenance","name":"Evidence, reproducibility and provenance","description":"The supporting material for the assertion, whether the divergence can be reproduced or re-observed, and the attribution, derivation and confidence of every claim carried.","findings":[{"id":"evidence-set-and-reproducibility","name":"Evidence set, sufficiency and reproduction","description":"Which evidence items support the discrepancy assertion, whether they are sufficient for the disposition sought, and whether and how the divergence can be reproduced or re-observed on demand.","questions":[{"text":"What evidence items are relied on, and where does each authoritatively reside?","id":"q-ev-items","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Is the evidence sufficient for the disposition sought, and if not, what is missing?","id":"q-ev-sufficiency","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Can the divergence be reproduced or re-observed, and under what stated preconditions?","id":"q-ev-reproduce","kind":"validation"},{"text":"How is each evidence item shown to be unaltered since capture?","id":"q-ev-integrity","kind":"security"}]},{"id":"provenance-attribution-and-confidence","name":"Attribution, derivation and confidence of assertions","description":"For each substantive claim on the record — the observation, the classification, the causal conclusion — who asserted it, from what it was derived, and how confident or contested it is.","questions":[{"text":"Which agent asserted each substantive claim on the record, and in what capacity?","id":"q-pv-attribution","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"From which prior record, report or analysis was this claim derived?","id":"q-pv-derivation","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"What confidence is attached to the assertion, and on what scale is it expressed?","id":"q-pv-confidence","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Is any claim contested, and how is the competing position recorded without overwriting the original?","id":"q-pv-dispute","kind":"exception"}]}]}]},{"id":"impact-and-causal-analysis","name":"Impact, recurrence and causal analysis","description":"What the discrepancy affects and how widely, how repeated observations aggregate onto one record, and what the investigation concluded about cause and available mitigation knowledge.","layers":[{"id":"impact-and-extent","name":"Impact extent and occurrence aggregation","description":"The affected population and consequence of the divergence, and the rules by which multiple observations are counted as one issue or as several.","findings":[{"id":"affected-subjects-and-extent","name":"Affected subjects, consequence and extent of spread","description":"Which subjects are affected, what consequence is assessed, and how far the divergence is believed to have spread across items, services, populations or time.","questions":[{"text":"Which subjects — items, services, processes, data sets or populations — are affected, and which are only suspected?","id":"q-im-subjects","kind":"composition"},{"text":"What consequence is assessed, and is it actual, potential or both?","id":"q-im-consequence","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Could the same divergence extend to items already delivered, in process or not yet examined?","id":"q-im-spread","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Is any affected subject designated critical, and does that designation change the required review path?","id":"q-im-criticality","kind":"authority"}]},{"id":"occurrence-aggregation-and-recurrence","name":"Occurrence aggregation, recurrence and baseline state","description":"The rule deciding whether a repeated observation increments an existing issue or creates a new one, how occurrence counts are maintained, and how the record's state relative to a previous baseline is expressed.","questions":[{"text":"Does a repeated observation increment an existing issue or create a new record, and what rule decides?","id":"q-oc-aggregation","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How many times has the condition been observed, and over what interval?","id":"q-oc-count","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Relative to a previous assessment baseline, is this condition new, unchanged, updated, absent, renamed or moved?","id":"q-oc-baseline","kind":"state"},{"text":"Have previous similar or identical discrepancies been recorded, and what did their disposition conclude?","id":"q-oc-priorsimilar","kind":"relationship"}]}]},{"id":"causal-analysis","name":"Causal analysis and mitigation knowledge","description":"Recorded outcomes of investigation into why the divergence exists, and the documented workaround or containment knowledge that follows from a diagnosed cause.","findings":[{"id":"causal-hypothesis-and-root-cause","name":"Hypothesis, proximate cause, root cause and contributing factors","description":"The investigation outcome recorded on the issue: candidate hypotheses, the immediate cause of the divergence, the underlying cause whose removal prevents recurrence, and contributing factors, each with its evidential basis and status.","questions":[{"text":"What candidate causes were considered, and on what evidence was each accepted or eliminated?","id":"q-ca-hypothesis","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Which cause is asserted as immediate and which as underlying, and are contributing factors distinguished from both?","id":"q-ca-levels","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which analysis method produced the conclusion, and who performed it?","id":"q-ca-method","kind":"process"},{"text":"Is the causal conclusion provisional or confirmed, and what would be needed to confirm it?","id":"q-ca-status","kind":"quality"},{"text":"If no cause could be determined, how is that outcome recorded so it is not mistaken for an unfinished investigation?","id":"q-ca-nocause","kind":"exception"}]},{"id":"known-error-and-workaround-knowledge","name":"Known-error designation and workaround knowledge","description":"The knowledge state reached when a cause is documented and a means of avoiding or reducing the impact exists, expressed as reusable knowledge rather than as executed work.","questions":[{"text":"On what conditions is the issue designated a known error, and what must be documented before that designation holds?","id":"q-ke-designation","kind":"definition"},{"text":"What documented means exists to avoid or reduce the impact without removing the cause, and what are its limits and side effects?","id":"q-ke-workaround","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Under which configurations, versions or populations is the documented workaround valid, and when does it expire?","id":"q-ke-validity","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"When a permanent removal of the cause is achieved, how is the known-error knowledge retired without losing its history?","id":"q-ke-supersede","kind":"lifecycle"}]}]}]},{"id":"lifecycle-and-disposition","name":"Lifecycle, triage and disposition","description":"The permitted states of the issue record, the triage decision that accepts or rejects it, the disposition categories that conclude it, and the references by which resolution and its verification are linked without being owned.","layers":[{"id":"state-and-progression","name":"State model and triage","description":"The declared state set with permitted transitions and their conditions, and the triage decision determining whether the asserted discrepancy is accepted for handling.","findings":[{"id":"lifecycle-state-model","name":"State set, permitted transitions and reopening","description":"The declared lifecycle states of the issue record, the conditions and competent party for each transition, terminal versus non-terminal states, and how reopening after a terminal state is represented.","questions":[{"text":"What is the declared state set, and which states are terminal?","id":"q-lc-states","kind":"state"},{"text":"Which transitions are permitted, and what condition must hold for each?","id":"q-lc-transitions","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Are independent progress predicates such as in-progress, fixed, reviewed, verified and closed carried alongside the state value, and how do they relate to it?","id":"q-lc-predicates","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"On what grounds may a terminal state be reopened, and does reopening reuse the record or create a successor?","id":"q-lc-reopen","kind":"exception"}]},{"id":"triage-and-acceptance-decision","name":"Triage, acceptance and rejection of the assertion","description":"The first substantive decision on a registered issue: whether the asserted discrepancy is accepted as a genuine, in-scope divergence, deferred, or rejected — and the grounds recorded for that determination.","questions":[{"text":"What triage outcome was reached — accepted, deferred, rejected, redirected or merged into another record?","id":"q-tr-outcome","kind":"decision"},{"text":"On what grounds was a rejection or deferral made, and is the assertion preserved rather than deleted?","id":"q-tr-grounds","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Where a detected condition is intentionally suppressed rather than rejected, how is the suppression recorded and reviewed?","id":"q-tr-suppression","kind":"access"},{"text":"What minimum information must be present before triage may conclude?","id":"q-tr-completeness","kind":"validation"}]}]},{"id":"disposition-and-resolution-linkage","name":"Disposition, closure and resolution linkage","description":"How the issue concludes: the disposition category selected by the competent authority, the criteria that must be satisfied to close, and the references to externally owned resolution work and its effectiveness verification.","findings":[{"id":"disposition-and-closure-criteria","name":"Disposition category and closure criteria","description":"The declared disposition outcome for the discrepancy, the closed value set from which it is drawn, the conditions that must be satisfied before closure, and the closure instant.","questions":[{"text":"Which disposition category was selected from the declared closed value set, and by which competent body?","id":"q-dp-category","kind":"decision"},{"text":"What criteria must be satisfied before closure is permitted, and is each recorded as met?","id":"q-dp-criteria","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"What assessments were made before selecting the disposition — feasibility, effect on the agreement, effect on intended use and applicability to in-process items?","id":"q-dp-feasibility","kind":"process"},{"text":"At what instant did the record close, and what distinguishes closure from resolution?","id":"q-dp-close","kind":"temporal"}]},{"id":"resolution-reference-and-verification-linkage","name":"Resolution and effectiveness-verification references","description":"The references from the issue to the corrective, preventive or change work undertaken elsewhere and to the verification or validation of that work's effectiveness, together with the acceptance status the issue carries as a result.","questions":[{"text":"Which action, change or task records address this issue, and which model owns each of them?","id":"q-rv-actions","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"What verification or validation of effectiveness is required, and where is its result held?","id":"q-rv-effectiveness","kind":"validation"},{"text":"What acceptance status does the issue carry as a consequence of that externally produced result?","id":"q-rv-acceptance","kind":"state"},{"text":"Which parties must be informed of the outcome, and how is the fact of dissemination recorded without owning the notification?","id":"q-rv-dissemination","kind":"process"}]}]}]},{"id":"relationships-and-interoperability","name":"Relationships and interoperability","description":"How issues relate to one another and to other subjects, and how the record is mapped, exchanged and reconciled across systems and vocabularies.","layers":[{"id":"relationship-structure","name":"Issue-to-issue and issue-to-subject relations","description":"The typed link structure among issues and from issues to the subjects, requirements, tests and events they concern.","findings":[{"id":"issue-to-issue-relations","name":"Typed relations between issue records","description":"The link types among issues — parent/child decomposition, duplicate-of, caused-by, blocks, related-to, supersedes — their directionality, cardinality and cycle rules.","questions":[{"text":"What typed relations may hold between two issue records, and is each directed or symmetric?","id":"q-rl-types","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Does a parent/child decomposition exist, and what does closing a parent imply for its children?","id":"q-rl-hierarchy","kind":"composition"},{"text":"How is a causal link between issues distinguished from a merely correlated one?","id":"q-rl-causal-link","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Are cycles permitted in any relation type, and what is the resolution rule if one is detected?","id":"q-rl-cycles","kind":"validation"}]},{"id":"external-subject-linkage","name":"Links to incidents, requirements, assets, tests and changes","description":"The outward links from an issue to the events it explains, the requirements it violates or affects, the assets and configurations it concerns, the tests that detect or are blocked by it, and the changes that address it.","questions":[{"text":"Which incident or occurrence records does this issue explain, and does explaining them alter their own lifecycle?","id":"q-el-incidents","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which requirements does the issue affect, track or arise from, and with what link semantics?","id":"q-el-requirements","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Which tests, checks or monitors detect this issue or are blocked by it?","id":"q-el-tests","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"What happens to an outward link when the target record is retired, merged or made inaccessible?","id":"q-el-integrity","kind":"quality"}]}]},{"id":"interoperability-and-exchange","name":"Vocabulary alignment and cross-system correspondence","description":"Mapping this model onto external issue, defect, nonconformance and occurrence vocabularies, and reconciling the same discrepancy held in several systems at once.","findings":[{"id":"vocabulary-crosswalks-and-conflicts","name":"Crosswalks to external vocabularies and recorded conflicts","description":"Declared mappings from this model's elements to external vocabularies, the lossy or contested points in each mapping, and the explicit refusal to claim conformance without evidence.","questions":[{"text":"Which external vocabularies is this model mapped to, at which version of each?","id":"q-iv-targets","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Which mappings are lossy or one-way, and what information is lost in each direction?","id":"q-iv-lossy","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Where do two external vocabularies define the same term incompatibly, and how is the conflict recorded rather than silently resolved?","id":"q-iv-conflict","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"What evidence would be required before a conformance claim to any target could be asserted?","id":"q-iv-conformance","kind":"validation"}]},{"id":"cross-system-correspondence","name":"Correspondence of one discrepancy across several systems","description":"How the same real discrepancy registered in a detection tool, a tracker, a quality system and a regulator repository is reconciled: which holder is authoritative for which field, and how divergence between copies is detected and expressed.","questions":[{"text":"Which systems hold a representation of this same discrepancy, and what identifier does each assign?","id":"q-cs-holders","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which holder is authoritative for which field, when several hold overlapping values?","id":"q-cs-authority","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"How is divergence between copies detected, and is reconciliation recorded as a change or as a disagreement?","id":"q-cs-divergence","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Is onward transmission to an external repository required, and what is its due interval and confirmation?","id":"q-cs-onward","kind":"requirement"}]}]}]},{"id":"governance-assurance-and-retention","name":"Ownership, authority, assurance, confidentiality and retention","description":"Who is accountable for the record, who is competent to decide on it, how record quality and completeness are declared, and how confidentiality, reporter protection and retention govern its life and end.","layers":[{"id":"ownership-and-authority","name":"Accountability and competent authority","description":"Which parties are accountable for the record and which are competent to make each determination on it, including waiver and concession routes.","findings":[{"id":"accountable-roles-and-custody","name":"Accountable roles and record custody","description":"The named accountabilities attached to the issue record — who owns it, who holds custody of its data, who is answerable for the affected subject — as distinct from who performs the resolving work.","questions":[{"text":"Which party is accountable for the issue record itself, and how does that differ from accountability for the affected subject?","id":"q-ow-owner","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Which organization holds custody of the record and its evidence, and under whose jurisdiction?","id":"q-ow-custody","kind":"authority"},{"text":"How is accountability transferred when the owner changes, and is the prior accountability period preserved?","id":"q-ow-handover","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Which parties are directly responsible for the affected area and must therefore receive information about the issue?","id":"q-ow-informed","kind":"requirement"}]},{"id":"decision-authority-and-waiver","name":"Competent decision authority, escalation path and waiver reference","description":"Which body or role is competent to accept, grade, dispose of, waive or close the issue at each significance level, the declared escalation path, and the reference to any concession, waiver or deviation permitting the divergence to stand.","questions":[{"text":"Which body or role is competent to make each determination, and does significance change that competence?","id":"q-au-competence","kind":"authority"},{"text":"What escalation path is declared when the competent authority cannot or will not decide within the applicable interval?","id":"q-au-escalation","kind":"process"},{"text":"Where a divergence is permitted to stand, which concession, waiver or deviation authorises it and under what limits?","id":"q-au-waiver","kind":"exception"},{"text":"Must the deciding party be independent of the party that caused or reported the divergence?","id":"q-au-independence","kind":"constraint"}]}]},{"id":"assurance-confidentiality-and-retention","name":"Record assurance, confidentiality and retention","description":"Declared completeness and quality constraints on the record, the confidentiality and reporter-protection regime governing its disclosure, and the retention, hold and disposition context of the record itself.","findings":[{"id":"record-completeness-and-validation","name":"Minimum information, completeness and declared validation constraints","description":"The minimum data set the record must carry to be usable at each lifecycle stage, the declared consistency constraints, and the explicit statement that evaluation and enforcement of those constraints are performed elsewhere.","questions":[{"text":"What minimum information must a record carry to be admissible, and does that minimum grow at later lifecycle stages?","id":"q-va-minimum","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which cross-field consistency constraints must hold, such as detection time not preceding occurrence time?","id":"q-va-consistency","kind":"validation"},{"text":"How is the quality of a record measured, and what threshold makes it fit for the decision being taken on it?","id":"q-va-quality","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Which component evaluates these constraints, and what does this model record about the outcome?","id":"q-va-evaluation","kind":"process"}]},{"id":"confidentiality-and-reporter-protection","name":"Sensitivity, reporter protection and disclosure control","description":"The sensitivity classification of the record, the protections owed to the reporter and to persons named in it, and the de-identification and redaction conditions under which the record or a derived extract may be disclosed.","questions":[{"text":"What sensitivity classification applies to the record and to its evidence, and can they differ?","id":"q-cf-sensitivity","kind":"privacy"},{"text":"What protection is owed to the reporter and to persons named, and which narrow exceptions remove it?","id":"q-cf-reporter","kind":"security"},{"text":"Which personal details must be removed before storage or dissemination, and at what point in the flow?","id":"q-cf-deidentify","kind":"privacy"},{"text":"On what basis may a party outside the holding organization obtain the record or a derived extract?","id":"q-cf-release","kind":"access"}]},{"id":"retention-hold-and-record-disposition","name":"Retention class, legal hold and record disposition context","description":"How long the issue record and its evidence must be kept, what suspends normal disposal, and how the end of the record's life is represented — while destruction execution stays with the records model or adopting Dimension.","questions":[{"text":"What retention class applies to the record and to its evidence, and from which anchor does the period run?","id":"q-rt-class","kind":"retention"},{"text":"What conditions suspend disposal, and who may place or lift a hold?","id":"q-rt-hold","kind":"authority"},{"text":"When a record is disposed of, what tombstone remains so that inbound references do not silently break?","id":"q-rt-tombstone","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"Which model or policy actually executes disposal, and what does this model record about it?","id":"q-rt-execution","kind":"ownership"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Register an issue from an intake submission.","Classify, grade and detect duplicates.","Attach evidence and reproduction context.","Record causal analysis outcomes and dispositions."],"mustNot":["Overwrite a discrepancy statement or causal conclusion instead of adding a new assertion.","Expose reporter identity beyond the declared point.","Execute corrective actions within this model.","Delete a duplicate instead of retiring it with a link.","Conflate occurrence time with ingestion time."],"requiresHuman":["Accepting a disposition such as won't fix or use-as-is.","Revealing a protected reporter's identity."]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Reporters can face retaliation if their identity is exposed.","Safety issues left unresolved can harm people."],"affectedParties":["Reporters","People affected by the problem","Teams accountable for resolution"]},"owners":{"steward":"Name an accountable issue-record owner and a custodian organization, with the governing jurisdiction, before any issue record may be registered.","roles":[{"name":"Issue registrar","responsibilities":["Register records from intake submissions and verify the minimum information set for the channel","Assign the authoritative identifier per the identity priority and record ingestion time separately","Preserve the as-submitted intake artifact unaltered and reference it immutably"]},{"name":"Issue record owner","responsibilities":["Hold accountability for completeness, correctness and currency of the record","Maintain the discrepancy statement, classification and grading with attribution","Ensure resolution and verification references are attached and their consequent acceptance status is current"]},{"name":"Competent review authority","responsibilities":["Decide triage acceptance, significance grading endorsement, disposition category and closure","Assess feasibility, effect on the agreement, effect on intended use and applicability to in-process items before disposition","Declare and resolve conflicts of interest where independence from the reporting or causing party is required"]},{"name":"Investigating analyst","responsibilities":["Record hypotheses considered with their eliminating or confirming evidence","Record proximate cause, root cause and contributing factors as separately typed statements with a conclusion status","Produce and version the causal analysis report and any known-error and workaround knowledge"]},{"name":"Records and disclosure custodian","responsibilities":["Apply the sensitivity classification, de-identification point and reporter-protection regime","Produce disclosure extracts with resolvable derivation links and bounded release conditions","Maintain retention class, hold state and tombstone, and route disposal authorisation to the owning retention policy"]},{"name":"Interoperability steward","responsibilities":["Maintain crosswalk editions against target vocabulary versions with loss and conflict annotations","Register external identifiers with representation roles and field-level authority assignments","Keep alignment declarations honest and block unevidenced conformance claims"]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-ACT-021","type":"references","note":"Optional non-owning reference to a service case that exposed or tracks the issue. The issue/problem retains its own identity, causal analysis and disposition lifecycle; WM-ACT-021 retains case identity, requester interaction, assignment, scheduling and closure. Neither lifecycle contains or inherits from the other."},{"target":"Incident / occurrence event model","type":"references","note":"Carry references to the occurrences an issue explains, with the explanatory role and, where required, the onward-transmission obligation. The occurrence record's own detection, response and closure lifecycle stays entirely in that model."},{"target":"Risk model (risk register entry)","type":"references","note":"Bind a realized risk to the issue it became, and carry an endorsed risk classification value assigned to the discrepancy. Likelihood modelling, treatment planning and risk-appetite evaluation remain with the risk model."},{"target":"Requirement / specification / norm model","type":"references","note":"Resolve the expected state against an authored requirement clause at the version in force at recognition. Requirement authoring, versioning and baseline control stay with that model."},{"target":"Corrective and preventive action model","type":"references","note":"Reference corrections, corrective actions and preventive actions with their roles, and the effectiveness verification or validation results they produce. Action execution and the verification activity itself are owned there; this model carries only the reference and the resulting acceptance status."},{"target":"Change request model aligned to OSLC Change Management 3.0","type":"aligned","note":"Align state, priority, severity, parent and related-request semantics to the oslc_cm vocabulary for exchange, using oslc_cm:state in preference to the archaic oslc_cm:status. Alignment only: no conformance is claimed and change workflow is not reproduced."},{"target":"Evidence, observation and measurement model","type":"references","note":"Reference evidence items with custodian, capture time and content digest, and reproduction procedures. Evidence capture, storage and integrity verification remain with that model."},{"target":"Provenance model aligned to W3C PROV-O","type":"aligned","note":"Express per-claim attribution, derivation of merged and superseded records, and assertion intervals using the PROV Entity/Activity/Agent pattern and its qualification classes."},{"target":"Classification scheme and taxonomy registry","type":"references","note":"Bind category codes to externally governed schemes with an explicit scheme identifier and version, as ADREP/ECCAIRS compatibility and SARIF taxa references both require. Code list governance, deprecation and versioning stay in the registry."},{"target":"Party, organization and role model","type":"references","note":"Resolve reporter, owner, custodian, analyst, competent authority and recipient references. Party master data, role definitions and competence assertions are owned there."},{"target":"Records retention and disposition policy model","type":"references","note":"Bind the retention class, anchor and hold authority, and receive the disposal authorisation reference. Schedule authoring, destruction execution and disposal certification are owned by that model or by the adopting Dimension's policy."},{"target":"Audit log service of the adopting Dimension","type":"references","note":"Reference the externally generated audit trail of who read or modified the issue record. This model declares what must be logged; generation, immutability and retention of the audit trail are owned entirely by that service and are not audit semantics of this model."},{"target":"Security vulnerability record model","type":"references","note":"Reference specialized weakness records that behave as issues but carry registry-governed identifiers, scoring systems and coordinated disclosure states. Those states and scoring machinery are not reproduced here."},{"target":"Sensitivity and disclosure classification mix-in","type":"composes","note":"Apply a shared sensitivity, de-identification and release-condition vocabulary to the issue record, its evidence and its derived extracts, so that classification semantics are common across record types rather than redefined per model."},{"target":"Incident / occurrence event","type":"neighbor","note":"An incident is an unplanned event or interruption that occurred at a point in time; an issue is the recognized discrepancy that one or more incidents may evidence. NIST SP 800-61r3 scopes incident response as an operational cycle inside cybersecurity risk management, and Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 treats an occurrence report as an event record with its own transmission deadlines. The issue record references occurrences; it does not carry their response lifecycle."},{"target":"Risk register entry","type":"neighbor","note":"A risk is an unrealized possibility carried for treatment; an issue is a recognized, already-observed divergence. Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 applies a safety risk classification to occurrences that have already happened, which shows risk scoring can be an attribute of an issue without making the issue a risk. Forward-looking likelihood modelling stays in the risk model."},{"target":"Corrective and preventive action (CAPA)","type":"neighbor","note":"21 CFR 820.100 separates investigating the cause of nonconformities from identifying, implementing and verifying the action. The issue owns the discrepancy, the investigation outcome and the disposition decision context; the action model owns action definition, execution and effectiveness verification. The issue carries only the reference and the acceptance status."},{"target":"Service case / work item reference (WM-ACT-021)","type":"neighbor","note":"OSLC Change Management models ChangeRequest, Task and ReviewTask as trackable executable activities with their own state predicates. Assignment, effort, scheduling and workflow execution belong there. This model retains the discrepancy semantics and links to the change request rather than duplicating its workflow."},{"target":"Requirement / specification / norm","type":"neighbor","note":"The expected state that makes a discrepancy a discrepancy is authored and versioned elsewhere. The issue carries a resolvable reference to the norm clause and the norm version in force at recognition time, not the norm text."},{"target":"Evidence, observation and measurement records","type":"neighbor","note":"Tool runs, logs, samples, images and measurement results are entities with their own provenance. SARIF models a result inside a run with its own artifact and provenance objects. The issue references evidence and states its sufficiency; it does not become the evidence store."},{"target":"Security vulnerability record","type":"neighbor","note":"A vulnerability is a specialized weakness class with registry-governed identifiers, scoring systems and coordinated disclosure states. It behaves as a specialization of an issue but carries machinery this generic model must not absorb; SARIF keeps taxonomy membership in taxa references rather than in the result itself."},{"target":"Records retention and disposition policy","type":"neighbor","note":"Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 places retention, de-identification and repository transfer duties on designated bodies. This model declares the retention class, hold state and tombstone marker on its own records but does not own destruction execution or certification."},{"target":"Classification scheme / taxonomy registry","type":"neighbor","note":"ADREP/ECCAIRS compatibility is mandated for aviation occurrence systems and SARIF results point at external taxa. Code list governance, versioning and deprecation stay in the classifier registry; the issue binds a code plus the scheme identifier and version."},{"target":"Complaint or customer feedback record","type":"neighbor","note":"21 CFR 820.100 lists complaints as one of several quality data sources analysed to detect nonconformities. A complaint is an intake channel artifact; it may cause an issue to be registered but is not itself the issue."}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative master-system identifier issued by the system of record that owns the issue — the tracker, quality management system, nonconformance system or occurrence database designated as master for this record.","Governed global identifier or IRI from a recognized registry or namespace, such as an OSLC resource IRI or a taxonomy-governed occurrence identifier.","UUID or ULID minted by the adopting Dimension when no master-system or governed global identifier exists; UUIDv7 is preferred per RFC 9562 for time-ordered locality, and UUIDs must not be assumed unguessable or treated as an access control.","Never use a date, a title, a reporter name, a severity value or a file path as an identifier. Content fingerprints and correlation values (for example SARIF fingerprints and correlationGuid) are matching aids for recognizing the same condition across runs and must never be promoted to record identity."]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":["An issue has a discrepancy statement, a reference requirement, a reporter, a severity and a status.","Often confused with an incident, a risk, a change request and a corrective action."]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Register issue from an intake submission: Create an issue record from an intake submission, binding the observed and expected state, the reference norm, the intake channel and the separated time anchors, and assigning the authoritative identifier.","State or restate the discrepancy: Record or revise the observed state, expected state, reference norm and norm version in force, retaining the superseded statement with its attribution.","Classify and grade the issue: Assign type, external category codes with scheme and version, and the severity, priority and significance grades, recording the grading basis and any required endorsement.","Resolve identity, duplicates and cross-system correspondence: Determine whether an incoming assertion is the same discrepancy as an existing record, select the canonical record on a merge, and register identifiers held by other systems with their authority assignment.","Attach evidence and reproduction context: Associate evidence items and any reproduction procedure with the issue, recording custodian, capture time, content digest and the resulting sufficiency assessment.","Record causal analysis outcome: Record the investigation outcome on the issue — hypotheses considered and eliminated, proximate cause, root cause, contributing factors, method, analyst and conclusion status — and any resulting known-error designation.","Apply a lifecycle transition to the issue record: Move the record between declared states, recording prior state, new state, transition instant, competent party and reason, and updating any interoperability progress predicates consistently.","Record disposition and closure: Record the disposition category selected by the competent body, the assessments performed, the closure criteria and their satisfaction, and the closure instant.","Link resolution work and effectiveness verification: Attach references to the action, change or task records addressing the issue and to the externally produced effectiveness verification results, and set the acceptance status the issue carries in consequence.","Produce a disclosure extract under confidentiality constraints: Derive a disidentified or redacted representation of the issue for a stated requester entitlement, retaining a derivation link to the source that only entitled parties can resolve.","Project the issue into an external vocabulary: Emit a representation of the issue in a target vocabulary at a stated version using the maintained crosswalk, annotating elements lost in the projection and declaring alignment rather than conformance.","Set retention class, hold and tombstone marker: Record the retention class and anchor, place or lift a disposal hold with its authority, and, once disposal is authorised and executed elsewhere, replace the record with the declared tombstone."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"required","items":["Retaliation against reporters.","Lost issues through bad duplicate merging.","Safety problems closed without action."]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["ISO 9001 nonconformity handling.","ISO 10002 complaints handling.","CVE identifiers for security vulnerabilities.","ITIL problem management."]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["Reporter protection and de-identification requirements are modelled from the EU civil aviation regime, which is binding only in that sector and jurisdiction. Other regions and sectors have weaker, absent or differently scoped protections; the model treats the regime as a declared per-Dimension parameter, not as a universal default.","Corrective and preventive action structure is modelled from US FDA device regulation as it stood in the 2023 CFR edition. That part has been undergoing harmonization toward ISO 13485-based requirements; adopters in that sector must confirm the currently effective text before relying on clause-level structure.","Nonconformance disposition and review board structure is modelled from European space product assurance practice and is contractual within that supply chain rather than generally binding.","Reporting deadlines of 72 hours for submission and 30 days for onward transmission are aviation-specific and must not be generalized to other domains.","Time representation assumes RFC 3339 with explicit offsets; deployments that store only local civil time or only naive UTC will lose the occurrence-versus-ingestion distinction the model depends on.","Language is assumed to be a single working language per adopting Dimension; cross-border exchange of free-text discrepancy statements may require translation semantics this model does not provide."]}},"sources":[{"title":"OSLC Change Management Version 3.0. Part 2: Vocabulary (OASIS Standard)","url":"https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/cm/v3.0/os/change-mgt-vocab.html","note":"OASIS Open Projects — OSLC Open Project"},{"title":"OSLC Change Management Version 3.0. Part 1: Specification (OASIS Standard)","url":"https://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/cm/v3.0/os/change-mgt-spec.html","note":"OASIS Open Projects — OSLC Open Project"},{"title":"Static Analysis Results Interchange Format (SARIF) Version 2.1.0 (OASIS Standard)","url":"https://docs.oasis-open.org/sarif/sarif/v2.1.0/os/sarif-v2.1.0-os.html","note":"OASIS"},{"title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology (W3C Recommendation)","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)"},{"title":"IEEE Std 1044-2009 — IEEE Standard Classification for Software Anomalies","url":"https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/1044/4607/","note":"IEEE Standards Association"},{"title":"Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 on the reporting, analysis and follow-up of occurrences in civil aviation","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0376","note":"European Union (EUR-Lex)"},{"title":"21 CFR 820.100 — Corrective and preventive action","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2023-title21-vol8/xml/CFR-2023-title21-vol8-sec820-100.xml","note":"U.S. Food and Drug Administration / U.S. Government Publishing Office"},{"title":"NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 — Incident Response Recommendations and Considerations for Cybersecurity Risk Management: A CSF 2.0 Community Profile","url":"https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/61/r3/final","note":"National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)"},{"title":"ECSS-Q-ST-10-09C Rev.1 — Space product assurance: Nonconformance control system","url":"https://ecss.nl/standard/24183/","note":"European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS Secretariat, ESA-ESTEC)"},{"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":"RFC 9562 — Universally Unique IDentifiers (UUIDs)","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)"},{"title":"NPR 8621.1D — NASA Procedural Requirements for Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping","url":"https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8621&s=1D","note":"National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)"},{"title":"Problem Management in ITIL: Process & Implementation Guide","url":"https://www.atlassian.com/itsm/problem-management","note":"Atlassian"}],"openQuestions":["Acquire licensed access to ITIL 4 and ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 to replace the tier-4 Atlassian basis for problem-versus-incident structure, known-error-database semantics and workaround terminology.","Retrieve ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765 and ISO 9000:2015 definitions for problem, defect, anomaly, nonconformity and root cause; the ISO Online Browsing Platform returned 403 in the source session and the definitional boundary currently rests on IEEE 1044-2009, ECSS-Q-ST-10-09C and 21 CFR 820.100.","Identify a primary data-protection instrument covering the erasure-versus-record-keeping tension so that de-identification-in-place stops resting on an aviation reporter-protection regime plus quality-retention duties alone.","Verify the currently effective US FDA text for corrective and preventive action, since the model is built on the 2023 CFR 820.100 edition during an ongoing harmonization toward ISO 13485-based requirements.","Source ISO 45001 occupational health and safety incident structure and clinical patient-safety reporting to decide whether a specializing sibling model is required rather than stretching this aggregate.","Obtain IEEE 1044-2009 clause text or its successor disposition so that typology structure draws on the classification attribute set rather than only the standard's stated scope.","Register the ten neighbour models referenced in the boundary notes — action, change, incident, risk, records retention, party, requirement, classifier registry, audit-log service and the vulnerability specialization sibling — so the relationship contract stops being empty and the boundary discipline becomes checkable.","Design and add functions for triage outcome recording, occurrence aggregation with baseline state, and assertion of typed issue-to-issue and external-subject relations, all of which have findings but no corresponding function.","ITSM problem management structure derived from ITIL 4 and ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018 is unverifiable at primary level because both are proprietary; the known-error and workaround finding rests on a tier-4 secondary source for its terminology and is marked as a gap.","ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765 and ISO 9000:2015 term definitions for problem, defect, anomaly, nonconformity and root cause could not be retrieved — the ISO Online Browsing Platform returned 403 — so definitional boundaries rest on IEEE 1044-2009, ECSS-Q-ST-10-09C and 21 CFR 820.100 instead.","IEEE Std 1044-2009 was verified as published but is Inactive-Reserved since 5 March 2020; its detailed classification attribute set is behind a paywall and was not read, so typology structure draws on its stated scope rather than its clause text.","The definitional appendix of NASA NPR 8621.1D was not retrievable in a readable form; the source supports the separation of reporting, investigation, corrective action and recordkeeping stages, not the specific wording of proximate cause, root cause or contributing factor.","Quantitative severity and priority scales are deliberately not fixed. No cross-domain normative scale exists, and imposing one would be unsupported structure; the model requires a declared scheme with version instead.","Escalation timing thresholds, ageing bands and service-level targets are left to the adopting Dimension; no primary source establishes cross-domain values.","Multilingual and translation semantics for discrepancy statements circulating across jurisdictions are not modelled.","Statistical aggregation, trend detection and predictive analytics over issue populations are treated as external consumption, not as model content."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-knw-014-issue-problem/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-knw-014-issue-problem/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-knw-014"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-knw-014-issue-problem/spec.yaml","ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-knw-014-issue-problem.json"],"providers":["Claude"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-09-02T20:58:47Z","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}}