{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-org-012","code":"wm-org-012-inter-organizational-relationship","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-org-012-inter-organizational-relationship/","name":"Inter-organizational Relationship","alternateNames":[],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.3.0-research.1","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Society, people and institutions","entryKind":"relationship","plane":"","domain":["SOC.ORG.REL"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.SOC.ORG.REL","tags":["inter","organizational","relationship","soc.org.rel"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"A source-qualified relationship aggregate with explicit participants, kind, direction, scope and evidence. Real-world relation state, publisher record state and observer claims remain separate. Multi-party arrangements require retained membership context.","purpose":"Describe attributed, time-qualified organizational relationships without confusing affiliation, supply, consolidation and ownership.","scope":{"in":["Relationship identity, endpoint roles and qualified kind","Control-basis references, collaboration and exchange scope","Temporal assertions, graph constraints, disputes and permitted mappings"],"out":["Organization identity, contract execution and ownership-register mastership","Customer/account and supplier-qualification lifecycles","Inferring legal authority, beneficial ownership or universal transitivity from a generic link"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"WM-ORG-001 Organization","distinction":"Reference organization identities; a relationship is not either organization."},{"neighbor":"WM-ORG-014 and WM-ORG-015","distinction":"Customer/account and supplier/partner qualification remain separate lifecycle masters; relationships provide scoped links."},{"neighbor":"Ownership and accounting consolidation","distinction":"Qualified relation kinds are not universally equivalent; person beneficial owners are out of endpoint scope."},{"neighbor":"Activity and contract","distinction":"PROV Association qualifies activity-agent provenance, not inter-organizational partnership; contract execution stays delegated."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["A typed, directed link between organizations, not either organization's identity.","Keeps affiliation, supply, consolidation and ownership as different kinds that cannot be read as one another.","Distinguishes the real-world relation, the publisher's record and an observer's claim.","Differs from a contract: a relationship may rest on a contract but is not its execution."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"relation-relationship-identity-and-endpoint-semantics","name":"Relationship identity and endpoint semantics","description":"Inter-organizational relationship identity and endpoint semantics.","layers":[{"id":"relation-identity","name":"Source-qualified relationship identity","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for source-qualified relationship identity. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"relation-identity-record","name":"Source-qualified relationship identity record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for source-qualified relationship identity. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which master namespace and identifier distinguish this relationship from another relationship between the same organizations?","id":"relation-identity-q01","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which versioned kind definition makes it partnership, affiliation, supply, control or another relation, and which near-neighbour kinds are excluded?","id":"relation-identity-q02","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which scope qualifier distinguishes parallel relationships by service, geography, business unit or agreement without overwriting one another?","id":"relation-identity-q03","kind":"constraint"}]}]},{"id":"participant-roles","name":"Participants, direction and multiplicity","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for participants, direction and multiplicity. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"participant-roles-record","name":"Participants, direction and multiplicity record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for participants, direction and multiplicity. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which organization references occupy each endpoint role and which identity resolution remains unknown or disputed?","id":"participant-roles-q01","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Is the relation directional, reciprocal or symmetric under its kind, and what inverse label preserves rather than changes its meaning?","id":"participant-roles-q02","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Is this a bilateral relation or a multi-party arrangement, and what is lost if its membership is exported as pairwise edges?","id":"participant-roles-q03","kind":"composition"}]}]}]},{"id":"relation-relationship-basis-and-domain-extent","name":"Relationship basis and domain extent","description":"Inter-organizational relationship basis and domain extent.","layers":[{"id":"recognition-basis","name":"Basis, recognition and authority","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for basis, recognition and authority. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"recognition-basis-record","name":"Basis, recognition and authority record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for basis, recognition and authority. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"What evidence establishes the claimed relation rather than merely common branding, a shared address or an unverified marketing statement?","id":"recognition-basis-q01","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Who asserts or recognizes it, in which capacity, and does the other party confirm, contest or have no recorded position?","id":"recognition-basis-q02","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which governing instrument and jurisdiction qualify the assertion without transferring contract ownership or legal adjudication to this record?","id":"recognition-basis-q03","kind":"requirement"}]}]},{"id":"control-interest","name":"Control and ownership interpretation","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for control and ownership interpretation. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"control-interest-record","name":"Control and ownership interpretation record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for control and ownership interpretation. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Does the relation concern accounting consolidation, equity, votes, other control or beneficial interest, and which definition applies?","id":"control-interest-q01","kind":"classification"},{"text":"What share, range, denominator, class, date and uncertainty qualify a quantitative interest instead of an unqualified percentage?","id":"control-interest-q02","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"Is direct or indirect control explicitly evidenced, which intermediate records support it, and which inference rules are prohibited?","id":"control-interest-q03","kind":"relationship"}]}]}]},{"id":"relation-collaboration-and-exchange-boundaries","name":"Collaboration and exchange boundaries","description":"Inter-organizational collaboration and exchange boundaries.","layers":[{"id":"collaboration-scope","name":"Partnership purpose and responsibilities","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for partnership purpose and responsibilities. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"collaboration-scope-record","name":"Partnership purpose and responsibilities record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for partnership purpose and responsibilities. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"What jointly stated purpose and activity scope belong to this collaboration?","id":"collaboration-scope-q01","kind":"definition"},{"text":"Which responsibilities are attributed to each party and where are their governing mandates mastered?","id":"collaboration-scope-q02","kind":"authority"},{"text":"What limits distinguish the collaboration from a newly formed legal entity or permission for an agent to bind either party?","id":"collaboration-scope-q03","kind":"constraint"}]}]},{"id":"exchange-link","name":"Supply and service linkage","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for supply and service linkage. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"exchange-link-record","name":"Supply and service linkage record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for supply and service linkage. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which party supplies and which receives what defined service or product scope, without importing orders, delivery events or payments here?","id":"exchange-link-q01","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Is the linkage prospective, awarded, observed or terminated, and what process-qualified evidence establishes that state?","id":"exchange-link-q02","kind":"state"},{"text":"Which customer/account or supplier-qualification models master the detailed commercial lifecycle and which fields must not be duplicated here?","id":"exchange-link-q03","kind":"ownership"}]}]}]},{"id":"relation-time-lifecycle-and-graph-interpretation","name":"Time, lifecycle and graph interpretation","description":"Inter-organizational time, lifecycle and graph interpretation.","layers":[{"id":"relationship-time","name":"Effective interval and record history","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for effective interval and record history. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"relationship-time-record","name":"Effective interval and record history record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for effective interval and record history. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"When did the relationship take effect and cease, at what precision, and are interval endpoints known, estimated or open?","id":"relationship-time-q01","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"When was the assertion observed, recorded and published, distinct from its effective interval, and which revision supersedes it?","id":"relationship-time-q02","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Does closure mean real-world termination, publisher record retirement or correction of erroneous data, and how is that distinction retained?","id":"relationship-time-q03","kind":"lifecycle"}]}]},{"id":"graph-interpretation","name":"Graph derivation and structural constraints","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for graph derivation and structural constraints. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"graph-interpretation-record","name":"Graph derivation and structural constraints record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for graph derivation and structural constraints. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which kind-specific constraints permit or forbid self-links, cycles and multiple parents without imposing one universal organization tree?","id":"graph-interpretation-q01","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"Which direct records, time slice and rule generated an indirect relation, and can the derived edge be reproduced separately from asserted data?","id":"graph-interpretation-q02","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"What ambiguity or information loss arises from merging conflicting, incomplete or differently scoped relationship graphs?","id":"graph-interpretation-q03","kind":"quality"}]}]}]},{"id":"relation-evidence-dispute-and-stewardship","name":"Evidence, dispute and stewardship","description":"Inter-organizational evidence, dispute and stewardship.","layers":[{"id":"assertion-evidence","name":"Evidence quality and counterclaims","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for evidence quality and counterclaims. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"assertion-evidence-record","name":"Evidence quality and counterclaims record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for evidence quality and counterclaims. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which attributable source, exact record and retrieval context support each relationship assertion, and what validation has actually occurred?","id":"assertion-evidence-q01","kind":"evidence"},{"text":"Which contradictory assertions coexist and who may resolve their conflict under the Dimension policy rather than overwrite inconvenient evidence?","id":"assertion-evidence-q02","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Does missing data mean unknown, withheld, not reported, expired or explicit non-existence within a defined search scope?","id":"assertion-evidence-q03","kind":"exception"}]}]},{"id":"relationship-stewardship","name":"Mastership, freshness and permitted disclosure","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for mastership, freshness and permitted disclosure. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"relationship-stewardship-record","name":"Mastership, freshness and permitted disclosure record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for mastership, freshness and permitted disclosure. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which system and role master this relationship record and when is review due?","id":"relationship-stewardship-q01","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Which fields or endpoints are confidential, redacted or publicly reusable under a stated access policy and source license?","id":"relationship-stewardship-q02","kind":"access"},{"text":"How does a redacted projection preserve the distinction between withheld and absent information while retaining an authorized evidence trail?","id":"relationship-stewardship-q03","kind":"privacy"}]}]}]},{"id":"relation-exchange-and-operational-acceptance","name":"Exchange and operational acceptance","description":"Inter-organizational exchange and operational acceptance.","layers":[{"id":"external-mapping","name":"Versioned external mappings","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for versioned external mappings. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"external-mapping-record","name":"Versioned external mappings record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for versioned external mappings. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which exact relationship kinds map to ORG, GLEIF RR-CDF, BODS or OCDS, and which merely have broader or narrower correspondence?","id":"external-mapping-q01","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"What qualifiers, time precision, multi-party structure or assertion status would be lost in each export?","id":"external-mapping-q02","kind":"interoperability"},{"text":"Which pinned schema/profile and round-trip fixtures demonstrate accepted mappings rather than an unsupported conformance claim?","id":"external-mapping-q03","kind":"validation"}]}]},{"id":"maintenance-acceptance","name":"Safe relationship maintenance operations","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for safe relationship maintenance operations. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","findings":[{"id":"maintenance-acceptance-record","name":"Safe relationship maintenance operations record","description":"Qualified relationship assertion for safe relationship maintenance operations. Retain source scope and do not infer legal or commercial authority from its mere existence.","questions":[{"text":"Which policy permits an agent to record, revise, dispute or retire the local assertion without creating or ending the real-world relationship?","id":"maintenance-acceptance-q01","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which expected revision and graph checks must pass before an append, and what conflict response preserves concurrent evidence?","id":"maintenance-acceptance-q02","kind":"validation"},{"text":"What post-write checks and compensating revision restore correctness without deleting provenance or silently widening disclosure?","id":"maintenance-acceptance-q03","kind":"process"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Resolve a relationship and its participants for a stated time.","Traverse asserted links and clearly label any derived ones.","Record an attributed assertion or counterclaim with its source.","Export a permitted projection of the relationship graph."],"mustNot":["Infer control, beneficial ownership or legal authority from a generic link.","Assume transitivity across relationship kinds.","Treat an unreported relationship as proof that none exists.","Merge parallel relationships between the same parties into one.","Use a relationship record to authorize a transaction or signature."],"requiresHuman":["Resolving disputed relationship assertions.","Publishing ownership or control conclusions about organizations."]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Ownership chains can reveal natural persons behind organizations, which raises privacy and safety issues.","False affiliation links can damage reputations or trigger sanctions screening errors.","Transparency of ownership serves anti-corruption goals and should not be lost in projections."],"affectedParties":["Organizations named in the relationship","Beneficial owners and officers behind them","Regulators, investors and journalists who rely on the graph"]},"owners":{"steward":"Declare the relationship-data owner and steward.","roles":[{"name":"Dimension owner","responsibilities":["Sets federation and delegation boundaries."]},{"name":"Relationship steward","responsibilities":["Owns kind, endpoint and scope interpretation."]},{"name":"Assertion contributor","responsibilities":["Adds attributable claims within authorized scope."]},{"name":"Reviewer","responsibilities":["Assesses conflicting evidence and proposed graph mappings."]},{"name":"Custodian","responsibilities":["Maintains access-filtered projections and retention."]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-ORG-001","type":"references","note":"Proposed endpoint-identity reference, not a frozen approved ledger edge."},{"target":"WM-ORG-014","type":"references","note":"Proposed customer/account lifecycle delegation where relevant."},{"target":"WM-ORG-015","type":"references","note":"Proposed supplier qualification delegation where relevant."},{"target":"https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/","type":"aligned","note":"Candidate generic links; relationship kind semantics require a profile."},{"target":"https://standard.openownership.org/en/latest/standard/reference.html","type":"aligned","note":"Candidate organization-interest subset only, with explicit endpoint and component loss."},{"target":"WM-ORG-001 Organization","type":"neighbor","note":"Reference organization identities; a relationship is not either organization."},{"target":"WM-ORG-014 and WM-ORG-015","type":"neighbor","note":"Customer/account and supplier/partner qualification remain separate lifecycle masters; relationships provide scoped links."},{"target":"Ownership and accounting consolidation","type":"neighbor","note":"Qualified relation kinds are not universally equivalent; person beneficial owners are out of endpoint scope."},{"target":"Activity and contract","type":"neighbor","note":"PROV Association qualifies activity-agent provenance, not inter-organizational partnership; contract execution stays delegated."},{"target":"WM-ORG-001","type":"parent"}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative relationship master identifier","Governed issuer-qualified URI","Dimension-generated UUID with namespace"]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":["A relationship has two or more participant references, a kind, a direction, a validity period and a source.","Confused with the organizations themselves, a contract, a transaction and a consolidated group."]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Resolve qualified relationship: Compare identities and scopes without merging parallel relations.","Inspect qualified graph: Traverse asserted or explicitly derived relationships at a declared time.","Record attributed assertion: Append evidence-backed claim without creating a real-world agreement.","Append lifecycle revision: Separate effective termination, correction and record retirement.","Register counterclaim: Preserve incompatible positions for authorized review.","Export permitted projection: Apply versioned vocabulary mapping with declared losses."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"required","items":["False sanctions or compliance hits from wrong ownership links.","Hidden control when withheld links are treated as absent.","Graph loops and inflated influence from derived links."]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["GLEIF Level 2 relationship records with LEI, ISO 17442.","Beneficial Ownership Data Standard from Open Ownership.","W3C Organization Ontology.","IFRS 10 consolidation concepts."]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["Generic relationship is not a universal legal category. Accounting consolidation and beneficial ownership must retain their source definitions and jurisdictions."]}},"sources":[{"title":"The Organization Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/","note":"W3C"},{"title":"Relationship Record CDF documentation","url":"https://www.gleif.org/content/4_lei-data/1_access-and-use-lei-data/4_level-2-data-relationship-record-rr-cdf-2-1-format/rr-cdf_version_2.1-documentation.html","note":"GLEIF"},{"title":"Level 2 Data: Who Owns Whom","url":"https://www.gleif.org/en/lei-data/access-and-use-lei-data/level-2-data-who-owns-whom","note":"GLEIF"},{"title":"Beneficial Ownership Data Standard schema reference","url":"https://standard.openownership.org/en/latest/standard/reference.html","note":"Open Ownership"},{"title":"Open Contracting Data Standard release reference","url":"https://standard.open-contracting.org/latest/en/schema/reference/","note":"Open Contracting Partnership"},{"title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","note":"W3C"},{"title":"Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339","note":"IETF"}],"openQuestions":["Independent external review and precise source/version/license pins.","Executable loss-aware mapping and graph fixtures.","Jurisdiction-specific relationship-kind profiles and approved typed composition.","Claude and Grok each timed out on the sole bounded attempt; Codex-only reviewable-draft, no independent corroboration.","Selected clauses only; exact dated source pins, source licenses and complete normative applicability remain to be verified.","Full RR-CDF XSD fields, BODS/OCDS constraints and real round-trip fixtures have not been validated.","No executable nested answer schema, identity resolver, graph rule engine or commercial operation is delivered.","Jurisdiction-specific partnership, control, reporting-exception and disclosure law remain adopter-owned profile work.","Multi-party and cyclic graph fixtures, relation-ledger approval and independent review remain open."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-org-012-inter-organizational-relationship/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-org-012-inter-organizational-relationship/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-org-012"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-org-012-inter-organizational-relationship/spec.yaml","ver-cy/world-models/card-supplements/wm-org-012-inter-organizational-relationship.json"],"providers":["Codex"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-09-09T20:36:09Z","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}}