{"schema":"https://ver.cy/schemas/card/1.0.0","id":"vr.wm-pol-007","code":"wm-pol-007-defense-force","url":"https://ver.cy/models/wm-pol-007-defense-force/","name":"Defense Force","alternateNames":["A17"],"kind":"world-model","status":"published","version":"0.1.0-reviewable-draft","language":"en","classifiers":{"family":"World Models","category":"Society, people and institutions","entryKind":"entity","plane":"","domain":["SOC.POL.DEF"],"industry":["Cross-industry"],"navPath":"NAV.SOC.POL.DEF","tags":["defense","force","soc.pol.def"],"facets":{}},"whatItIs":"One persistent defense force institution, including separately identified constituent-unit references and qualified governance assertions. It is an institutional record, not a force registry, operational command system, national security apparatus or declaration of legal legitimacy. Disputed status remains representable without endorsement.","purpose":"Describe one constituted defense institution through identity, policy authority, organizational references and accountable stewardship.","scope":{"in":["Force identity, classification, constituent relationships and organizational continuity","Policy mandates, civilian control, deployment-authority references and oversight evidence","Personnel-rights policies, compliance assurance, resource-accountability references and coarse dated readiness assessments","Recipient-specific disclosure, provenance, correction and lawful record disposition"],"out":["Operational plans, tactical command, targeting, intelligence collection, weapons specifications, controlled-item handling and detention procedures","Live unit locations, inventories, vulnerabilities, force optimization or reconstruction of restricted capability from public fragments","Personnel, asset, treaty, decision, legal act, investigation and deployment-event master records","Police-only bodies, private security and non-state armed groups as default members of this institutional class"],"boundaries":[{"neighbor":"Legacy A17 / world.defenseForces","distinction":"Legacy breadth is reconciled, not inherited as truth. A17 is a model alias, not a force-instance identifier. No legacy conformance badge, wildcard standard import, strict single-parent command tree or unrestricted full-structure projection is admitted."},{"neighbor":"WM-ORG-009 Public Office","distinction":"A controlling office, its incumbent and the defense institution retain distinct identities. Constitutional authority requires evidence beyond an organizational edge."},{"neighbor":"Operations and deployment records","distinction":"The legacy G3 operations reference has no verified canonical binding in this run. Operational subjects remain external without inventing a successor ID. An authorization reference neither executes nor proves a deployment."},{"neighbor":"Police, security bodies and non-state armed groups","distinction":"Source obligations may extend beyond this model scope. Mixed-role institutions require an explicit profile and role-qualified links; statutory classification and actual assertions must not be collapsed into a legitimacy judgement."},{"neighbor":"WM-POL-002 Lawmaking Process and WM-POL-005 Treaty","distinction":"A lawmaking process is not an enacted legal instrument. Treaties and decision records are external masters; adoption needs pinned bindings and applicability review."}]},"distinguishingFeatures":["Unlike Legacy A17 / world.defenseForces: Legacy breadth is reconciled, not inherited as truth. A17 is a model alias, not a force-instance identifier. No legacy conformance badge, wildcard standard import, strict single-parent command tree or unrestricted full-structure projection is admitted.","Unlike WM-ORG-009 Public Office: A controlling office, its incumbent and the defense institution retain distinct identities. Constitutional authority requires evidence beyond an organizational edge.","Unlike Operations and deployment records: The legacy G3 operations reference has no verified canonical binding in this run. Operational subjects remain external without inventing a successor ID. An authorization reference neither executes nor proves a deployment.","Unlike Police, security bodies and non-state armed groups: Source obligations may extend beyond this model scope. Mixed-role institutions require an explicit profile and role-qualified links; statutory classification and actual assertions must not be collapsed into a legitimacy judgement.","Unlike WM-POL-002 Lawmaking Process and WM-POL-005 Treaty: A lawmaking process is not an enacted legal instrument. Treaties and decision records are external masters; adoption needs pinned bindings and applicability review."],"structure":{"bundles":[{"id":"bundle-constitution","name":"Identity and institutional continuity","description":"Institutional evidence for identity and institutional continuity.","layers":[{"id":"layer-identity","name":"Force identity and class","description":"Use stable authority-qualified identity, names as aliases and explicit contested or unverified classifications. Renaming does not automatically create a new institution.","findings":[{"id":"finding-identity","name":"Force identity and class assertions","description":"Use stable authority-qualified identity, names as aliases and explicit contested or unverified classifications. Renaming does not automatically create a new institution.","questions":[{"text":"Which master namespace and identifier distinguish this force from its names, offices and legacy model alias?","id":"q-identity-1","kind":"identity"},{"text":"Which institutional class and jurisdiction are asserted, by whom, and what conflicting classification remains unresolved?","id":"q-identity-2","kind":"classification"},{"text":"Which evidence supports recognition of the institution without treating a label as proof of legal legitimacy?","id":"q-identity-3","kind":"evidence"}]}]},{"id":"layer-continuity","name":"Constitution and organizational continuity","description":"Reference establishment, renaming, merger, split and dissolution evidence with effective intervals. Preserve predecessor and successor identity instead of merging records by similarity.","findings":[{"id":"finding-continuity","name":"Constitution and organizational continuity assertions","description":"Reference establishment, renaming, merger, split and dissolution evidence with effective intervals. Preserve predecessor and successor identity instead of merging records by similarity.","questions":[{"text":"Which founding or constituting record and effective period support the institution entry?","id":"q-continuity-1","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Which change evidence distinguishes a rename from a merger, split or successor institution?","id":"q-continuity-2","kind":"lifecycle"},{"text":"What remains unknown about effective dates or post-dissolution record custody?","id":"q-continuity-3","kind":"temporal"}]}]}]},{"id":"bundle-organization","name":"Organization and accountable control","description":"Institutional evidence for organization and accountable control.","layers":[{"id":"layer-structure","name":"Constituent organization references","description":"Keep units and posts separately identified. Distinguish administrative membership from other relationships; overlapping or disputed links need typed intervals and cannot silently become a universal command tree.","findings":[{"id":"finding-structure","name":"Constituent organization references assertions","description":"Keep units and posts separately identified. Distinguish administrative membership from other relationships; overlapping or disputed links need typed intervals and cannot silently become a universal command tree.","questions":[{"text":"Which constituent organizations or posts are referenced and which system owns each identity?","id":"q-structure-1","kind":"composition"},{"text":"Which relationship type, interval and evidence qualify each institutional membership link?","id":"q-structure-2","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"How are ambiguous parents, cycles or incompatible relationship claims flagged for review?","id":"q-structure-3","kind":"validation"}]}]},{"id":"layer-control","name":"Civilian control and oversight","description":"Separate constitutional control, institutional reporting and independent oversight. An incumbent is not an office; ownership of the data system cannot veto a legally mandated reviewer.","findings":[{"id":"finding-control","name":"Civilian control and oversight assertions","description":"Separate constitutional control, institutional reporting and independent oversight. An incumbent is not an office; ownership of the data system cannot veto a legally mandated reviewer.","questions":[{"text":"Which public offices exercise control under which constitutional or statutory instruments?","id":"q-control-1","kind":"authority"},{"text":"Which oversight bodies have evidenced access or reporting entitlements independent of discretionary data-owner grants?","id":"q-control-2","kind":"access"},{"text":"How are acting appointments, delegations and contested competence recorded without extending authority by inference?","id":"q-control-3","kind":"exception"}]}]}]},{"id":"bundle-authority","name":"Mandate and activity authority","description":"Institutional evidence for mandate and activity authority.","layers":[{"id":"layer-mandate","name":"Mandate and legal limits","description":"Keep assigned tasks, applicable constraints and legal reviews distinct. Constituting an institution does not authorize every proposed activity; a legal-profile gap remains visible.","findings":[{"id":"finding-mandate","name":"Mandate and legal limits assertions","description":"Keep assigned tasks, applicable constraints and legal reviews distinct. Constituting an institution does not authorize every proposed activity; a legal-profile gap remains visible.","questions":[{"text":"Which versioned mandate assigns the force its policy-level tasks and exclusions?","id":"q-mandate-1","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which domestic and international legal assessments qualify an asserted power?","id":"q-mandate-2","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"When was the mandate amended, suspended or disputed and which assertions are affected?","id":"q-mandate-3","kind":"state"}]}]},{"id":"layer-authorization","name":"Deployment and civil-support authority references","description":"Record existing decisions at policy level with territorial jurisdiction, purpose, duration and review qualifiers. Domestic authority, international-law assessment and actual occurrence are separate; no operational detail is admitted.","findings":[{"id":"finding-authorization","name":"Deployment and civil-support authority references assertions","description":"Record existing decisions at policy level with territorial jurisdiction, purpose, duration and review qualifiers. Domestic authority, international-law assessment and actual occurrence are separate; no operational detail is admitted.","questions":[{"text":"Which competent decision record supports an asserted deployment or civil-support authorization?","id":"q-authorization-1","kind":"decision"},{"text":"Which non-operational purpose, jurisdiction, expiry and reporting conditions limit that authorization?","id":"q-authorization-2","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"What evidence distinguishes authorization, extension, revocation and actual occurrence without executing any of them?","id":"q-authorization-3","kind":"event"}]}]}]},{"id":"bundle-safeguards","name":"Personnel and lawful-conduct safeguards","description":"Institutional evidence for personnel and lawful-conduct safeguards.","layers":[{"id":"layer-personnel","name":"Personnel rights and service policy","description":"Reference recruitment, service rights, welfare and complaint policies without copying individual personnel files. Eligibility exceptions, protected reporting and access need jurisdictional review.","findings":[{"id":"finding-personnel","name":"Personnel rights and service policy assertions","description":"Reference recruitment, service rights, welfare and complaint policies without copying individual personnel files. Eligibility exceptions, protected reporting and access need jurisdictional review.","questions":[{"text":"Which recruitment and service-rights policies apply to the institution and where are eligibility safeguards reviewed?","id":"q-personnel-1","kind":"requirement"},{"text":"Which protected complaint or remedy channels and responsible offices are available under the adopted profile?","id":"q-personnel-2","kind":"process"},{"text":"Which personal details are unnecessary for this institutional view and must remain in restricted external records?","id":"q-personnel-3","kind":"privacy"}]}]},{"id":"layer-assurance","name":"Lawful-conduct assurance","description":"Record policy assurance for humanitarian obligations, legal advice, instruction and alleged noncompliance referrals. An allegation is not a finding of guilt and a training record is not proof of lawful conduct.","findings":[{"id":"finding-assurance","name":"Lawful-conduct assurance assertions","description":"Record policy assurance for humanitarian obligations, legal advice, instruction and alleged noncompliance referrals. An allegation is not a finding of guilt and a training record is not proof of lawful conduct.","questions":[{"text":"Which legal-advice and humanitarian-law instruction policies have review evidence for this force?","id":"q-assurance-1","kind":"quality"},{"text":"Which governance controls address unlawful orders, civilian protection and accountability at policy level?","id":"q-assurance-2","kind":"constraint"},{"text":"How are alleged breaches and remediation references recorded without deciding guilt or exposing protected persons?","id":"q-assurance-3","kind":"security"}]}]}]},{"id":"bundle-resources","name":"Resources and assessment evidence","description":"Institutional evidence for resources and assessment evidence.","layers":[{"id":"layer-resources","name":"Resource accountability references","description":"Link approved resource and custody summaries to external masters. Approval, expenditure, possession and ownership are separate assertions; controlled-item contents and handling are outside this model.","findings":[{"id":"finding-resources","name":"Resource accountability references assertions","description":"Link approved resource and custody summaries to external masters. Approval, expenditure, possession and ownership are separate assertions; controlled-item contents and handling are outside this model.","questions":[{"text":"Which approved budget and expenditure-report references cover the stated fiscal period and institutional scope?","id":"q-resources-1","kind":"ownership"},{"text":"Which external custody or asset-accountability register is responsible for a permitted high-level resource reference?","id":"q-resources-2","kind":"relationship"},{"text":"Which reconciliation gaps or restrictions prevent a resource summary from implying ownership or complete coverage?","id":"q-resources-3","kind":"quality"}]}]},{"id":"layer-readiness","name":"Coarse readiness assertion governance","description":"Only reference pre-existing, authorized coarse assessments with period, assessor, taxonomy and uncertainty. No local score, combat prediction, sensitive detail or readiness reconstruction is provided.","findings":[{"id":"finding-readiness","name":"Coarse readiness assertion governance assertions","description":"Only reference pre-existing, authorized coarse assessments with period, assessor, taxonomy and uncertainty. No local score, combat prediction, sensitive detail or readiness reconstruction is provided.","questions":[{"text":"Which authorized assessment, coarse category definition and reporting scope support the recorded readiness assertion?","id":"q-readiness-1","kind":"measurement"},{"text":"What observation period, validity limit and known coverage gap constrain interpretation of the readiness assertion?","id":"q-readiness-2","kind":"temporal"},{"text":"Which evidence review prevents an absent, withheld or stale assessment from being read as current readiness?","id":"q-readiness-3","kind":"validation"}]}]}]},{"id":"bundle-stewardship","name":"Disclosure and record stewardship","description":"Institutional evidence for disclosure and record stewardship.","layers":[{"id":"layer-disclosure","name":"Disclosure and lawful reporting","description":"Maintain separate public, oversight and authorized exchange views. Restriction labels require a legal basis and review; public fragments must not be combined to reconstruct protected details.","findings":[{"id":"finding-disclosure","name":"Disclosure and lawful reporting assertions","description":"Maintain separate public, oversight and authorized exchange views. Restriction labels require a legal basis and review; public fragments must not be combined to reconstruct protected details.","questions":[{"text":"Which legal basis, recipient role and purpose permit the requested institutional view?","id":"q-disclosure-1","kind":"access"},{"text":"Which report obligation, due period and receipt evidence apply without treating preparation as delivery?","id":"q-disclosure-2","kind":"process"},{"text":"Which redactions, aggregation limits and challenge routes make disclosure proportionate and reviewable?","id":"q-disclosure-3","kind":"security"}]}]},{"id":"layer-records","name":"Provenance retention and exchange","description":"Preserve assertion lineage and correction references while applying lawful retention and disposal. Interchange must carry authority, time, uncertainty and access qualifiers or be refused.","findings":[{"id":"finding-records","name":"Provenance retention and exchange assertions","description":"Preserve assertion lineage and correction references while applying lawful retention and disposal. Interchange must carry authority, time, uncertainty and access qualifiers or be refused.","questions":[{"text":"Which source, author, revision and transformation trail explain each institutional assertion?","id":"q-records-1","kind":"provenance"},{"text":"Which retention schedule, preservation hold and disposal decision govern each record class and residual copy?","id":"q-records-2","kind":"retention"},{"text":"Which pinned mapping and acceptance checks preserve the meaning of an authorized exchange?","id":"q-records-3","kind":"interoperability"}]}]}]}]},"agentConduct":{"may":["Resolve a force reference: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Resolve namespace-qualified identity without merging by designation or recognizing legitimacy.","Record an organization link: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Append an evidenced typed relationship and effective interval; never create a command authority.","Record an authority reference: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an existing mandate or authorization and its limitations; do not issue, approve or implement a deployment decision.","Record assurance evidence: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Append a policy review or restricted referral reference while preserving allegation and review status.","Record a coarse assessment reference: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an already authorized readiness assessment with taxonomy, period and uncertainty; no score calculation, inference or live detail.","Prepare an authorized institutional view: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create a local recipient-scoped projection with redaction and mapping-loss reports. Refuse unsafe aggregation or loss of required qualifiers."],"mustNot":["Statutory oversight entitlements cannot be displaced by a discretionary data-owner veto.","Deny content access absent verified recipient, purpose and lawful scope; separately implement mandatory oversight entitlements.","Statutory oversight, court or emergency access needs documented lawful basis, limited scope and accountable review; never a blanket secret-data bypass."],"requiresHuman":[]},"ethics":{"considerations":["Review applicable law, personnel safeguards, disputed authority and lawful access","National constitutional variants, mixed police-defense institutions, reserves, multinational structures and jurisdiction-specific personnel and safeguarding rules need specialist profiles."],"affectedParties":[]},"owners":{"steward":"Competent public defense authority and accountable institutional records custodian identified by role and authority evidence","roles":[{"name":"Institutional records custodian","responsibilities":["Maintain master-reference integrity, revisions and stewardship"]},{"name":"Competent public authority","responsibilities":["Provide mandate and policy authority evidence within constitutional competence"]},{"name":"Legal and rights reviewer","responsibilities":["Review applicable law, personnel safeguards, disputed authority and lawful access"]},{"name":"Independent oversight reviewer","responsibilities":["Exercise evidenced statutory scrutiny and report unresolved accountability gaps"]},{"name":"Access and records officer","responsibilities":["Apply proportionate disclosure, retention and disposal rules with review routes"]}],"masterSystems":[]},"relations":[{"target":"WM-ORG-009","type":"references","note":"Candidate public-office binding, independently mastered; pin before adoption."},{"target":"WM-POL-005","type":"references","note":"Candidate treaty master; a treaty link does not establish applicability or permission to disclose."},{"target":"WM-POL-002","type":"references","note":"Candidate lawmaking-process provenance only, never a substitute for a legal instrument."},{"target":"WM-REC-010","type":"references","note":"Candidate external decision master; legal effect and execution remain external."},{"target":"WM-XCT-004","type":"aligned","note":"Candidate access-audit alignment for minimum necessary disclosure evidence; pin before integration."},{"target":"W3C ORG 2014-01-16","type":"aligned","note":"Conceptual organization, unit, post and change mapping; no conformance claim."},{"target":"PROV-O 2013-04-30","type":"aligned","note":"Conceptual assertion lineage and revision mapping; no runtime implementation."},{"target":"Legacy A17 / world.defenseForces","type":"neighbor","note":"Legacy breadth is reconciled, not inherited as truth. A17 is a model alias, not a force-instance identifier. No legacy conformance badge, wildcard standard import, strict single-parent command tree or unrestricted full-structure projection is admitted."},{"target":"WM-ORG-009 Public Office","type":"neighbor","note":"A controlling office, its incumbent and the defense institution retain distinct identities. Constitutional authority requires evidence beyond an organizational edge."},{"target":"Operations and deployment records","type":"neighbor","note":"The legacy G3 operations reference has no verified canonical binding in this run. Operational subjects remain external without inventing a successor ID. An authorization reference neither executes nor proves a deployment."},{"target":"Police, security bodies and non-state armed groups","type":"neighbor","note":"Source obligations may extend beyond this model scope. Mixed-role institutions require an explicit profile and role-qualified links; statutory classification and actual assertions must not be collapsed into a legitimacy judgement."},{"target":"WM-POL-002 Lawmaking Process and WM-POL-005 Treaty","type":"neighbor","note":"A lawmaking process is not an enacted legal instrument. Treaties and decision records are external masters; adoption needs pinned bindings and applicability review."}],"interaction":{"identity":{"applicability":"required","items":["Authoritative master-system identifier with namespace and revision","Stable verified external record URI with version","Local opaque UUID with reconciliation status"]},"properties":{"applicability":"not-applicable","items":[]},"recognition":{"applicability":"optional","items":[]},"capabilities":{"applicability":"required","items":["Resolve a force reference: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Resolve namespace-qualified identity without merging by designation or recognizing legitimacy.","Record an organization link: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Append an evidenced typed relationship and effective interval; never create a command authority.","Record an authority reference: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an existing mandate or authorization and its limitations; do not issue, approve or implement a deployment decision.","Record assurance evidence: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Append a policy review or restricted referral reference while preserving allegation and review status.","Record a coarse assessment reference: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Link an already authorized readiness assessment with taxonomy, period and uncertainty; no score calculation, inference or live detail.","Prepare an authorized institutional view: Proposed local operation, not implemented. Create a local recipient-scoped projection with redaction and mapping-loss reports. Refuse unsafe aggregation or loss of required qualifiers."]},"hazards":{"applicability":"optional","items":[]},"interfaces":{"applicability":"required","items":["PROV-O: The PROV Ontology"]},"context":{"applicability":"required","items":["OSCE commitments apply to participating States; their legal character differs from treaties.","Selected UN Charter provisions and the ICRC study require contextual legal analysis; no deployment legality is adjudicated.","GAO-13-678 is a historical US reporting example, not current readiness evidence or a universal duty."]}},"sources":[{"title":"Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security","url":"https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/5/7/41355.pdf","note":"Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe"},{"title":"United Nations Charter Article 51","url":"https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml","note":"United Nations"},{"title":"United Nations Charter Article 2(1)-(5)","url":"https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2.shtml","note":"United Nations"},{"title":"Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules","url":"https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf","note":"International Committee of the Red Cross"},{"title":"The Organization Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"PROV-O: The PROV Ontology","url":"https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/","note":"World Wide Web Consortium"},{"title":"Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps","url":"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339.html","note":"Internet Engineering Task Force"},{"title":"Military Readiness: Opportunities Exist to Improve Completeness and Usefulness of Quarterly Reports to Congress","url":"https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-678","note":"United States Government Accountability Office"}],"openQuestions":["Verify source retrieval and current versions outside the sandbox, then assess applicable law, scope and licensing for each adopting jurisdiction.","Develop pinned neighbor mappings and executable nested schemas with contested identity, overlapping authority, stale or withheld assessment, mandatory oversight and lawful disposal fixtures.","Restore independent external review before canonical or publishable-draft promotion; research national and mixed-role profiles separately.","Independent external review is waived; separate local self-audit cannot substitute for it.","Direct HTTP checks were not attempted under the owner-reported sandbox block; current source versions, legal applicability and licensing remain open.","Nested schemas, pinned neighbor bindings, ORG/PROV mappings and adversarial instance conformance are not implemented.","National constitutional variants, mixed police-defense institutions, reserves, multinational structures and jurisdiction-specific personnel and safeguarding rules need specialist profiles.","No operational capability taxonomy, readiness algorithm, controlled-item record schema or detention procedure is included."],"resources":{"spec":"/models/wm-pol-007-defense-force/spec.yaml","agents":"/models/wm-pol-007-defense-force/AGENTS.md","source":"https://github.com/ver-cy/world-models/tree/feat/mega-model-registry/research/runs/wm-pol-007"},"provenance":{"origin":"world-models research","builtFrom":["models/wm-pol-007-defense-force/spec.yaml"],"providers":["Codex"],"researchStatus":"reviewable-draft","generatedAt":"2026-10-06T16:55:56Z","builder":"tools/build_cards.py@1.0.0"},"completeness":{"sections":{"classifiers":"filled","whatItIs":"filled","purpose":"filled","distinguishingFeatures":"derived","structure":"filled","agentConduct":"derived","ethics":"derived","owners":"filled","relations":"filled","interaction.identity":"filled","interaction.properties":"not-applicable","interaction.recognition":"missing","interaction.capabilities":"filled","interaction.hazards":"missing","interaction.interfaces":"derived","interaction.context":"filled","sources":"filled"},"notes":{"distinguishingFeatures":"Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.","agentConduct":"Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.","ethics":"Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.","interaction.properties":"Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties."},"score":0.75}}