{ "model": { "rank": 3635, "code": "thing-crime", "model_id": "vr.tr.crime", "name": "crime", "purpose": "(criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/crime/", "tier": 2, "score": 83, "payload": { "layer": "wordnet", "aliases": [ "breach of trust with fraudulent intent", "carjacking", "prostitution", "harlotry", "whoredom", "scam", "cozenage", "barratry", "criminal offense", "criminal offence", "law-breaking", "capital offense", "cybercrime", "felony", "fraud", "hijack", "highjack", "mayhem", "misdemeanor", "misdemeanour", "infraction", "violation", "infringement", "disorderly conduct", "disorderly behavior", "disturbance of the peace", "breach of the peace", "false pretense", "false pretence", "indecent exposure", "public nudity", "perjury", "bearing false witness", "lying under oath", "sedition", "molestation", "perpetration", "commission", "committal", "rape" ], "aliasCount": 154, "merged": 83, "knownIn": 0, "facets": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert", "mobility": "not-applicable", "scale": "not-applicable", "affordances": [ "observable" ] }, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "noun.act", "senseRank": 0, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "oewn:2024", "synset": "oewn-00767761-n", "ili": "i39442", "license": "CC BY 4.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T14:44:51Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 31.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07c52-f0f8-7133-9994-3f5ed5e83758\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: crime\nSense to describe: (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext fo", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 86.2, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07c52-f102-7842-b80d-e71cfcc465da\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: crime\nRegistry id: vr.tr.crime\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-CRIME", "registryId": "vr.tr.crime", "name": "crime", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/crime/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.crime", "name": "crime", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to assess whether specified conduct may constitute crime under an identified legal framework, distinguish allegations from established outcomes, and identify the conditions governing further action.", "definition": "In criminal law, a crime is an act or omission that applicable law defines as a criminal offence and makes punishable, subject to the required elements of liability and any applicable defences, whether or not it is generally regarded as morally evil.", "scope_statement": "This model owns crime as the criminal-law classification of an act or omission, including its legal basis, constituent elements, attribution, evidential status, and relationship to harm and legally available responses; it distinguishes an offence type from an alleged or established occurrence.", "in_scope": [ "The jurisdiction, applicable time, and legal authority under which conduct is classified as criminal", "Offence elements, required mental states, and applicable liability conditions", "Acts, omissions, consequences, and forms of participation relevant to a specified offence", "Allegations, supporting and conflicting evidence, and authoritative determinations", "Defences, exceptions, and conditions affecting criminal liability", "Affected interests, reported harms, and constraints on responses to suspected or established crime" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete models of courts, police, prisons, and criminal justice institutions", "Civil wrongs, administrative violations, and moral wrongdoing except where their boundaries intersect criminal classification", "Comprehensive models of particular offence families such as theft or homicide", "General theories of criminal motivation and population-level crime prediction", "Full investigation, trial, sentencing, and rehabilitation workflows", "The identity or character of a person treated as inherently criminal" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify a criminal-law basis applicable to the conduct, place, and time; disapproval or perceived evil alone does not establish the classification.", "Identify whether the record concerns an offence type, an alleged occurrence, or an authoritative finding; these are different objects of assessment.", "Map the conduct to the elements of a specified offence rather than inferring crime solely from an adverse outcome.", "Check whether the relevant legal framework classifies the matter as criminal, civil, administrative, or overlapping; the presence of a penalty alone is insufficient for the model to decide.", "Keep legal criminality separate from moral evaluation and experienced harm so that disagreement about criminalisation remains expressible." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Object of assessment", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Offence type | alleged occurrence | adjudicated occurrence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a definition of prohibited conduct from being confused with proof that particular conduct occurred." }, { "name": "Applicable legal framework", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified jurisdiction, legal authority, provision, version, and period of applicability", "why_it_matters": "Makes the criminal classification traceable and sensitive to differences across places and times." }, { "name": "Conduct form", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Act | omission | combined conduct | disputed or unknown; described against the particular offence", "why_it_matters": "Directs attention to what was done or not done and, for an omission, any legally relevant duty." }, { "name": "Element assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "For each required element: unassessed | supported | disputed | unsupported | authoritatively determined", "why_it_matters": "Exposes the reasoning behind an assessment instead of presenting a single unexplained crime label." }, { "name": "Mental-state requirement", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Requirement and terminology from the applicable law, including whether a mental state is required for each element", "why_it_matters": "Avoids assuming that intent is always required or that the same mental-state vocabulary applies everywhere." }, { "name": "Attributed participation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor linked to alleged conduct and a jurisdiction-specific basis of individual or organisational liability", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes responsibility for conduct from proximity, affiliation, or association." }, { "name": "Procedural status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Reported | under investigation | charged | adjudicated | under review | closed, with authority, date, and outcome where applicable", "why_it_matters": "Keeps claims, procedural steps, and determinations distinct without assuming a universal sequence." }, { "name": "Recorded harm", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Source-specific measures such as monetary loss with currency, injury assessment, affected-person count, or duration; unknown where unestablished", "why_it_matters": "Allows harm to be assessed without treating it as automatic proof of an offence or collapsing different harms into one score." }, { "name": "Liability qualifications", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Potentially applicable | raised | disputed | accepted | rejected | unresolved, separately for each defence or exception", "why_it_matters": "Preserves matters that may change an otherwise plausible classification." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare described conduct with the elements of a named offence while recording missing information and competing interpretations.", "Trace a proposed criminal classification to the applicable legal authority and its temporal and territorial limits.", "Separate reports, allegations, evidence, charges, and adjudicated outcomes in agent-generated accounts.", "Identify potentially relevant defences, exceptions, and alternative classifications for qualified review.", "Record affected interests and reported harm independently of whether liability has been established.", "Determine what additional evidence, legal interpretation, or institutional authority is needed before a proposed response can proceed." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "criminalisation-and-legal-boundaries", "name": "Criminalisation and legal boundaries", "description": "Establishes the legal sense of crime and the framework in which a classification is proposed.", "rationale": "The registry's reference to evil must not make moral condemnation a substitute for a criminal-law basis.", "layers": [ { "id": "applicable-prohibition", "name": "Applicable prohibition", "description": "Locates the authority that defines the offence and determines its applicability.", "findings": [ { "id": "legal-basis-and-applicability", "name": "Legal basis and applicability", "description": "Record the proposed offence, authoritative legal text, relevant version, and reasons it applies to the conduct.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which legal authority defines the proposed offence, and which version applied at the relevant time?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "legal-basis-and-applicability-q01" }, { "text": "What territorial, personal, or other jurisdictional connection makes that authority applicable?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "legal-basis-and-applicability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "legal-and-normative-classifications", "name": "Legal and normative classifications", "description": "Separates criminal classification from adjacent legal categories and competing normative accounts.", "findings": [ { "id": "criminality-harm-and-wrongfulness", "name": "Criminality, harm, and wrongfulness", "description": "Record how the relevant authority classifies the conduct and attribute any competing moral, social, or criminological interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What establishes that this classification is criminal rather than solely civil, administrative, or moral?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "criminality-harm-and-wrongfulness-q01" }, { "text": "Which identified sources or schools dispute the criminalisation or define crime differently, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition", "id": "criminality-harm-and-wrongfulness-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conduct-and-offence-elements", "name": "Conduct and offence elements", "description": "Connects a bounded occurrence to the requirements of a particular offence.", "rationale": "A crime assessment needs an explicit account of conduct and element satisfaction rather than resemblance to an offence label.", "layers": [ { "id": "occurrence-and-conduct", "name": "Occurrence and conduct", "description": "Identifies the conduct being assessed and its relevant boundaries.", "findings": [ { "id": "act-omission-and-occurrence-boundary", "name": "Act, omission, and occurrence boundary", "description": "Record the alleged act or omission, its timing, and the basis for treating related conduct as one or several occurrences.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific act or omission is alleged, and what identifies its time, place, and duration?", "kind": "definition", "id": "act-omission-and-occurrence-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "If the allegation concerns an omission, what duty to act is asserted and where is that duty established?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "act-omission-and-occurrence-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "element-by-element-assessment", "name": "Element-by-element assessment", "description": "Tests the requirements of the offence against the available account.", "findings": [ { "id": "required-circumstances-results-and-completion", "name": "Required circumstances, results, and completion", "description": "Record required conduct, circumstances, consequences, causal connections, and any distinction between completed and incomplete offences.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which elements must be established, and what supports or challenges each one?", "kind": "definition", "id": "required-circumstances-results-and-completion-q01" }, { "text": "Does the proposed classification require a result or causal connection, or rely on a separately defined incomplete offence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "required-circumstances-results-and-completion-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "responsibility-and-liability-qualifications", "name": "Responsibility and liability qualifications", "description": "Examines why responsibility is attributed to an actor and what may qualify that attribution.", "rationale": "Conduct, association, and harmful outcomes cannot by themselves resolve every question of criminal responsibility.", "layers": [ { "id": "actor-and-mental-state", "name": "Actor and mental state", "description": "Connects each actor to a legally specified basis of liability.", "findings": [ { "id": "participation-and-culpability", "name": "Participation and culpability", "description": "Record the alleged role, the applicable participation rule, and any mental-state requirement attached to the elements.", "questions": [ { "text": "What conduct and legal rule connect this actor to the alleged offence as a direct participant or through another form of liability?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "participation-and-culpability-q01" }, { "text": "What mental state, if any, is required for each relevant element, and how is it supported or disputed?", "kind": "definition", "id": "participation-and-culpability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "defences-exceptions-and-capacity", "name": "Defences, exceptions, and capacity", "description": "Preserves legally relevant qualifications to the proposed liability.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualification-assessment", "name": "Qualification assessment", "description": "Record potentially relevant defences, exceptions, and capacity conditions with their legal basis and assessment status.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which defences, exceptions, or capacity rules may apply to these facts under the identified law?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualification-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What information and applicable assessment rules are needed to resolve each qualification?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualification-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-determination", "name": "Evidence and determination", "description": "Maintains the distinction between a claim about crime and an established legal outcome.", "rationale": "An agent must not transform a report, charge, or uncertain inference into a finding of guilt.", "layers": [ { "id": "claims-and-evidential-support", "name": "Claims and evidential support", "description": "Tracks the origin and limits of claims about the occurrence and its elements.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-to-evidence-traceability", "name": "Claim-to-evidence traceability", "description": "Associate material claims with their sources, contradictions, and unresolved gaps.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who makes each material claim, and which evidence supports or contradicts it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claim-to-evidence-traceability-q01" }, { "text": "Which apparent corroborations are independent, and which repeat or derive from the same account?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claim-to-evidence-traceability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "procedural-and-adjudicative-status", "name": "Procedural and adjudicative status", "description": "Records what a competent authority has decided and the limits of that decision.", "findings": [ { "id": "authoritative-outcome-and-review", "name": "Authoritative outcome and review", "description": "Record the current procedural position, any decision, its scope, and outstanding review.", "questions": [ { "text": "What is the latest verified procedural status or outcome, and which authority and record establish it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "authoritative-outcome-and-review-q01" }, { "text": "What did the decision determine, under which standard, and what remains unresolved or subject to review?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "authoritative-outcome-and-review-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "harm-and-permissible-response", "name": "Harm and permissible response", "description": "Relates the alleged offence to affected interests and conditions governing intervention.", "rationale": "Understanding crime requires attention to consequences while keeping response authority distinct from an agent's assessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "affected-interests-and-consequences", "name": "Affected interests and consequences", "description": "Separates the interests protected by an offence from harms reported in a particular occurrence.", "findings": [ { "id": "protected-interest-and-observed-harm", "name": "Protected interest and observed harm", "description": "Record the stated protected interest, affected parties, observed harm, and uncertainty in attribution or measurement.", "questions": [ { "text": "What interest is this offence understood to protect, and which authority or interpretation supports that account?", "kind": "definition", "id": "protected-interest-and-observed-harm-q01" }, { "text": "What harm or exposure to harm is reported, how was it measured, and how securely is it connected to the conduct?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "protected-interest-and-observed-harm-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-authority-and-prerequisites", "name": "Response authority and prerequisites", "description": "Identifies what must be established before a contemplated response is available.", "findings": [ { "id": "authorised-next-action", "name": "Authorised next action", "description": "Record the contemplated response, responsible actor, legal prerequisites, and unresolved conditions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which person or institution has authority to take the proposed action at the current procedural stage?", "kind": "action", "id": "authorised-next-action-q01" }, { "text": "What legal thresholds, procedural protections, or unresolved facts must be addressed before that action may proceed?", "kind": "action", "id": "authorised-next-action-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This covers the criminal-law sense, not figurative uses of 'crime' for an outrage or serious mistake.", "The listed kinds are common, overlapping groupings rather than a universal legal taxonomy.", "These are recalled references, not consulted sources; a researcher should verify jurisdiction, applicable date, treaty scope and statistical classification version before operational use." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Offences against the person", "Property offences", "Sexual offences", "Public-order offences", "Economic and financial offences", "Offences against the administration of justice" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS)", "value_or_pattern": "Hierarchical numerical category codes", "note": "Developed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime for statistical classification; codes identify categories of criminal conduct, not individual incidents or universally applicable legal offences." }, { "scheme": "Jurisdiction-specific legal citation", "value_or_pattern": "Jurisdiction, statute or code title, section or article, and applicable version", "note": "Identifies the legal provision defining an offence; some jurisdictions also recognize common-law offences." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Domestic criminal statutes and codes, enacted by the relevant legislature, define offences and penalties within their scope.", "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly: Articles 14 and 15 address criminal proceedings, legality and non-retroactivity.", "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by states at the Rome diplomatic conference, defines crimes within the Court's jurisdiction and conditions for exercising that jurisdiction.", "International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, developed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, provides a statistical classification rather than a criminal code." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Determining whether alleged conduct satisfies the elements of an offence and whether a defence applies", "Classifying allegations for investigation, charging and prosecution", "Adjudicating criminal liability and imposing legally authorized sanctions", "Producing crime statistics and victimization surveys", "Studying victimization, offending patterns and prevention measures" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Recorded crime rate", "typical_range": "No universal typical range; depends on offence category, reporting, recording rules, population and period", "unit": "Recorded offences per 100,000 people per year" }, { "quantity": "Victimization prevalence", "typical_range": "0-100%; observed values depend on offence coverage, surveyed population and reference period", "unit": "Percent of people or households experiencing at least one covered offence during the reference period" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Equating criminality with moral wrongness: harmful conduct may be lawful, and criminalized conduct may be morally contested.", "Treating an allegation, arrest or charge as proof that a person committed a crime.", "Ignoring omissions, legal duties, required mental elements, defences or jurisdiction-specific rules of liability.", "Treating police-recorded offences as a complete measure of offending despite underreporting and differences in enforcement and recording.", "Comparing crime rates across places or periods without accounting for changes in definitions, counting rules and survey methods." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "The same conduct may be criminal, administratively prohibited or lawful in different jurisdictions or at different times.", "Severity classifications differ: felony and misdemeanor are used in some systems, while others use different categories or procedural distinctions.", "Rules for corporate liability, criminal responsibility by age, mental elements and available defences vary by jurisdiction." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Tort", "difference": "A tort grounds civil liability; a crime grounds criminal liability, although the same conduct can constitute both." }, { "name": "Moral wrong", "difference": "Moral wrongness depends on ethical judgment; criminality depends on applicable criminal law." }, { "name": "Deviance", "difference": "Deviance violates social norms, which need not be legally enforceable or criminal." }, { "name": "Administrative violation", "difference": "An administrative violation is handled under an administrative enforcement regime; its boundary with criminal punishment depends on the legal system." }, { "name": "Conviction", "difference": "A conviction is a legal determination of guilt; a crime is the prohibited conduct whose commission is at issue." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of crime this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which comparative legal sources best support a shared vocabulary for offence elements, mental states, defences, and procedural outcomes without erasing jurisdictional differences?", "How should the model represent competing claims about whether a nominally administrative or regulatory prohibition is criminal in substance?", "Which legal, sociological, and critical definitions of crime should be represented as attributed alternatives to the registry's criminal-law sense?", "What rules should identify one occurrence across multiple alleged offences, continuing conduct, and proceedings in several jurisdictions?", "Which existing Vercy world model, if any, already owns this concept and should receive the registry link instead of a separate publication?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 19, "questions": 29 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched.", "facetsInferred": false, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a crime, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "(criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: breach of trust with fraudulent intent, carjacking, prostitution, harlotry, whoredom, scam, cozenage, barratry, criminal offense, criminal offence, law-breaking, capital offense.", "83 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a crime, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "breach of trust with fraudulent intent", "carjacking", "prostitution", "harlotry", "whoredom", "scam", "cozenage", "barratry", "criminal offense", "criminal offence", "law-breaking", "capital offense" ] } ], "standing": "83 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one crime from another, and a crime from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a crime sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a crime from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a crime passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a crime between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a crime, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a crime is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "process-and-outcome", "name": "Process, inputs and outcome", "description": "How a crime proceeds, what it needs and what it leaves behind.", "rationale": "An activity is known by its steps and its results, and both have to be recordable while it is still running.", "layers": [ { "id": "steps-and-sequence", "name": "Steps and sequence", "description": "The steps of a crime, their order and what may run in parallel.", "findings": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions", "name": "Steps, preconditions and completion", "description": "What has to be true before each step of a crime and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a step of a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a step of a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-results", "name": "Inputs, resources and results", "description": "What a crime consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a crime takes and the results it leaves, wanted or not.", "questions": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the inputs and results of a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the inputs and results of a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the inputs and results of a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitions-in-contest", "name": "Definitions and who holds them", "description": "What crime is taken to mean, and by whom.", "rationale": "When a field disagrees about a concept, the disagreement is the content. A model that picks one definition silently destroys the information.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "The main readings and the traditions behind them.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-map", "name": "Definitions and their holders", "description": "Each definition with the school or body that holds it.", "questions": [ { "id": "definition-map-q01", "text": "Which definitions of crime are in use, and which tradition or body holds each?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "definition-map-q02", "text": "What turns on the difference between them in practice?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operationalisation", "name": "Operationalisation", "description": "How it is measured or applied when it has to be.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-record", "name": "Measures and proxies", "description": "Instruments and indicators used to stand in for it.", "questions": [ { "id": "operational-record-q01", "text": "How is crime operationalised or measured in practice, and by what instrument?", "kind": "measurement" }, { "id": "operational-record-q02", "text": "What does that operationalisation leave out, and when does that matter?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-use", "name": "Instances, use and consequence", "description": "What counts as an instance of crime and what follows from calling something that.", "rationale": "Applying a concept is an act with consequences, so a model must say what the label licenses and what it does not.", "layers": [ { "id": "instances", "name": "What counts as an instance", "description": "Clear cases, borderline cases and non-cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "instance-tests", "name": "Tests for an instance", "description": "What would settle whether something falls under it.", "questions": [ { "id": "instance-tests-q01", "text": "What would settle whether something is an instance of crime?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "instance-tests-q02", "text": "Which borderline cases are argued about, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequence", "name": "Consequence of application", "description": "Rights, duties or decisions that follow from the label.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequence-record", "name": "What the label licenses", "description": "What an agent may do once something is classified this way.", "questions": [ { "id": "consequence-record-q01", "text": "What follows practically once something is treated as crime?", "kind": "action" }, { "id": "consequence-record-q02", "text": "What must an agent not infer from the label alone?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a crime came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a crime and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a crime is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a crime, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a crime, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a crime is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }