denial
Enable an AI agent to recognise a refusal to comply, determine its scope and current force, and choose an appropriate response without treating refusal as permission.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 14 findings · 28 questions
Refusal target and parties Establish what compliance was sought and whose refusal the act expresses.
Requested compliance
Identify the demand against which the refusal is understood.
Identifiable compliance target
Record the requested action, its source and any relevant version so the refusal has a determinate target.
- What action, omission, provision or cooperation was being requested? definition
- Which request or contextual evidence establishes that this was the conduct being refused? provenance
- Does the refusal address the original request or a revised proposal? boundary
Refusal attribution
Separate the refusing party from anyone expressing or conveying its position.
Speaker and refusing party
Attribute the refusal to a party while preserving uncertainty about representation or delegated authority.
- Who expressed the refusal, and whose compliance did they purport to refuse? provenance
- What evidence establishes that the speaker could refuse on that party's behalf? provenance
Recognising the refusal Determine whether the observed expression or conduct constitutes refusal in the registry's sense.
Expression and context
Preserve the words, signals or conduct through which refusal is understood.
Evidence of refusal
Distinguish an explicit refusal from a contextual inference, retaining the evidence needed to revisit that interpretation.
- What exact statement, signal or conduct provides evidence that compliance was refused? provenance
- Is refusal explicit, or does recognising it depend on a convention or contextual interpretation? definition
- What clarification would resolve an ambiguous expression without presuming consent or compliance? action
Neighbouring acts
Test plausible alternatives to refusal before classifying an event as denial.
Refusal versus nonperformance
Do not infer refusal solely from an unmet request, a statement of incapacity or a rejection of a factual claim.
- Could the observed nonperformance reflect inability, nonreceipt, misunderstanding or delay rather than refusal? boundary
- Does the expression refuse an action, deny a proposition, request clarification, or perform more than one of these acts? boundary
Extent and grounds Determine exactly what the refusal excludes and how its stated explanation relates to that exclusion.
Scope and conditions
Identify refused components, retained possibilities and conditions of application.
Bounded refusal
Record whether the refusal concerns the whole request, a component, a method or a time, and preserve any explicitly stated conditions.
- Which requested components, methods or times are expressly refused? boundary
- What exceptions or conditions did the refusing party actually state? definition
- Does an offered alternative explicitly reject the original proposal, and which parts remain unresolved? boundary
Reasons and authority
Separate stated explanations from verified constraints and domain-specific consequences.
Grounds without invented motive
Preserve reasons as attributed claims; assess their support and any relevant authority through the governing context.
- What reason, if any, did the refusing party provide, and where was it recorded? provenance
- Which claimed constraints or rules have been verified, and which remain assertions? provenance
- Which neighbouring model determines whether the refusal is permitted, binding or subject to review? boundary
Operative state and response Track whether the refusal still applies and identify responses supported by the current evidence and governing context.
Communication and revision
Distinguish expression, receipt and subsequent changes to the refusal.
Current applicability
Maintain the original act and later communications together so current scope can be determined without erasing the history.
- What evidence shows when the refusal was expressed and whether the requester received it? provenance
- Has an attributable later act qualified, withdrawn or superseded the refusal? provenance
- Do the refusal's stated conditions still apply to the conduct now proposed? boundary
Permissible next steps
Select clarification, adaptation, review or closure according to the refusal and applicable rules.
Response without assumed permission
Identify supported next steps without treating an explanation, silence or withdrawal of refusal as sufficient authorisation for every related action.
- Should the agent stop the requested action, clarify the refusal, propose an alternative or invoke an established review process? action
- What evidence or authorisation is required before proceeding with conduct previously refused? action
- What limits apply to renewed requests or contact with the refusing party? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Information and virtual systems
- Entry kind
- noun.communication
- Plane
- INF
- Domain
- INF.MED
- Facets: substance
- information
- Facets: origin
- conceptual
- Facets: agency
- inert
- Facets: mobility
- not-applicable
- Facets: scale
- not-applicable
- Facets: affordances
- readable
- Other names and narrower kinds
- abnegation, naysaying, negative, no, nay, double negative, refusal, repudiation, disavowal, disclaimer, retraction, abjuration
What it is Filled
Denial, in the sense of refusal to comply, is an act by which an agent declines to perform or permit an action requested, demanded, or directed by another.
In scope
- The requested conduct and the person or organisation refusing it
- Explicit refusals and conduct that may evidence a refusal
- The portion of requested conduct refused and any stated conditions
- Stated reasons, grounds and authority for the refusal
- Whether the refusal remains operative, has been qualified or has been withdrawn
- Available clarification, reconsideration and response paths
Out of scope
- Denial that a proposition is true, unless it also performs a refusal to comply
- Psychological denial as a defence mechanism
- Denial-of-service attacks and technical service unavailability
- The complete lifecycle of the underlying request or obligation
- Domain-specific rules governing consent, eligibility, appeals or sanctions
- Nonperformance caused solely by inability, delay or failure to receive a request
Why it exists Filled
Enable an AI agent to recognise a refusal to comply, determine its scope and current force, and choose an appropriate response without treating refusal as permission.
Distinguishing features Filled
- An identifiable requested or expected action is refused; merely contradicting a statement is insufficient.
- An explicit refusal can establish denial before the requested action becomes due or nonperformance occurs.
- Failure to comply alone does not establish denial: inability, misunderstanding, delay and nonreceipt remain alternative explanations.
- A request for clarification or an alternative proposal counts as denial only insofar as it refuses the original requested conduct.
- The refusal may address only part of a request or apply under specified conditions; it does not automatically reject every related action.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Refuse a request silently or pretend to comply while not doing so.
- Invent reasons for a refusal or hide the real one.
- Refuse a person a service they are entitled to because of who they are.
- Override a person's lawful refusal of something they have a right to decline.
Only with a human decision
- Refusing a request where the refusal could put someone in danger, such as in an emergency.
May
- Decline a request it is not authorized or not able to fulfil, and say so clearly.
- Record that a request was refused and the stated reason, where records are required.
Moral aspects Filled
- The right to refuse protects personal autonomy, including the right to decline treatment or searches.
- Unjust refusals of service can be discrimination.
Who is affected
- People who are refused
- People whose refusals are ignored
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns the act; each agent answers for its own refusals.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- oewn-07175534-n - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.denial
- Open English WordNet: oewn-07219061-n
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Requested conduct: Reference to the request, demand, instruction or expectation and the conduct sought
- Refusing actor and represented party: Actor expressing the refusal; party on whose behalf it is expressed; authority known or unresolved
- Refusal evidence: Explicit statement; conventional signal; conduct supporting an inference; ambiguous evidence
- Refused scope: Entire request; specified components; specified manner; specified timing; unresolved
- Conditions of application: Stated circumstances, prerequisites, exceptions or time limits
- Stated grounds: No reason supplied; unwillingness; claimed inability; claimed constraint; disputed obligation; other stated reason
- Current force: Operative; qualified; withdrawn; superseded; no longer applicable under stated terms; unresolved
- Communication status: Expressed; transmitted; receipt evidenced; acknowledged; unknown
Plane INF: no invented physical properties.
Recognition not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Refusal is a communicative act whose meaning depends on context and cannot be established reliably from visual appearance alone.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Link the refusal to the precise requested conduct and affected parties.
- Identify whether evidence supports refusal or only unexplained nonperformance.
- Clarify ambiguous wording, scope or conditions without presuming agreement.
- Record stated reasons separately from verified grounds and applicable rules.
- Check whether an alternative proposal or authorised reconsideration route is available.
- Track qualification or withdrawal while preserving the original refusal and its evidence.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Arbitrary refusals can deny people essential services.
- Ignored refusals can amount to coercion.
Standards and interfaces not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
No single standard, law or official classification applies to refusal to comply across all contexts.
Context of use required Filled
- Denial occurs when a person or other agent declines a request, demand or instruction to act or grant permission.
- It is encountered in consent discussions, service interactions, workplace exchanges and automated authorization decisions.
- Interpreting it requires identifying the refused action, any stated conditions and whether the refusal remains current.
Sources Filled
- Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-07219061-n - sense and gloss of the concept
- Wiktionary: denial - word senses and usage
Open questions
- Does the registry intend refusal of implicit expectations and standing instructions to be included alongside refusal of explicit requests?
- What evidence threshold should support classifying silence or conduct as refusal in each relevant communicative context?
- Should a private decision never to comply count as denial before it is expressed or enacted?
- How should institutional refusals delivered by automated systems be attributed when decision authority and message delivery are separate?
- Is there an existing Vercy world model for refusal that should remain the single source of truth for this registry entry?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-denial/spec.json