{ "model": { "rank": 4009, "code": "thing-improvement", "model_id": "vr.tr.improvement", "name": "improvement", "purpose": "the act of improving something", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/improvement/", "tier": 2, "score": 79, "payload": { "layer": "wordnet", "aliases": [ "autosuggestion", "auto-suggestion", "self-suggestion", "re-establishment", "tenderization", "tenderisation", "cleaning", "cleansing", "cleanup", "disinfestation", "spring-cleaning", "scrub", "scrubbing", "scouring", "swabbing", "mopping", "dry cleaning", "sweeping", "purge", "purging", "purification", "catharsis", "katharsis", "abreaction", "purgation", "sterilization", "sterilisation", "pasteurization", "pasteurisation", "sanitation", "sanitization", "sanitisation", "depilation", "epilation", "shave", "shaving", "tonsure", "electrolysis", "correction", "rectification" ], "aliasCount": 135, "merged": 79, "knownIn": 0, "facets": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert", "mobility": "not-applicable", "scale": "not-applicable", "affordances": [ "observable" ] }, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "noun.act", "senseRank": 1, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "oewn:2024", "synset": "oewn-00249844-n", "ili": "i36702", "license": "CC BY 4.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T19:16:30Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 26.9, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\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: 01a08798-bcb0-7c53-8b00-7fcb86dfd826\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: improvement\nSense to describe: the act of improving something\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 61.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\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: 01a08798-bca0-7d83-94d2-d779eb9a3d09\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: improvement\nRegistry id: vr.tr.improvement\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: the act of improving something\nNames folded into this e" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-IMPROVEMENT", "registryId": "vr.tr.improvement", "name": "improvement", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/improvement/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.improvement", "name": "improvement", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise an act of improvement, assess whether it makes a specified target better under explicit criteria, and decide whether to continue, revise, retain or reverse it.", "definition": "Improvement is the act of changing something so that its performance, condition, or value becomes better relative to a baseline and specified evaluative criteria.", "scope_statement": "This model owns improvement in the ACT sense: an act directed at making something better, including its evaluative basis, intervention, evidence of effects and disposition; it distinguishes an attempted improvement from a demonstrated gain.", "in_scope": [ "The target, its relevant starting condition and the limits of the proposed improvement", "What better means, for whom, under which criteria and relative to which reference", "The action intended to produce a gain and the reasoning connecting action to outcome", "Evidence supporting or challenging the claimed gain and its attribution", "Trade-offs, persistence and decisions about retaining or reversing the change" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete model of the target being improved", "Change without an intention or supported claim of making something better", "Innovation considered solely as the introduction of novelty", "Routine operation or maintenance considered independently of an improvement objective", "Evaluation that assesses a condition without undertaking an improving act", "Project or programme administration beyond what is needed to assess the improvement" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An improvement claim identifies a target and an explicit sense in which it is expected or observed to become better; difference alone is insufficient.", "The act and its result can be distinguished: an intervention may be intended as an improvement yet fail, remain unverified or make conditions worse.", "A claim of improvement specifies a reference condition; a favourable condition without a comparison does not establish a gain.", "Novelty is unnecessary: restoring a damaged capability may improve the current condition without introducing anything new.", "A gain on one criterion does not establish improvement overall when other criteria or affected parties experience losses." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Improvement target", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "The entity, process, capability or condition acted upon, with the affected aspect identified", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a local gain from being asserted as improvement of an unspecified whole." }, { "name": "Evaluative basis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Criteria linked to their proponents, affected parties and authority for accepting a gain", "why_it_matters": "Makes the meaning of better explicit and exposes disagreements." }, { "name": "Comparison reference", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Previous condition, expected condition without intervention, alternative intervention, benchmark or other stated reference", "why_it_matters": "Different references support different claims about what improved." }, { "name": "Observed gain", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Criterion-specific difference with native units, direction of preference, observation period and uncertainty; qualitative comparisons where measurement is unsuitable", "why_it_matters": "Records the size and limits of the observed benefit without assuming a universal improvement score." }, { "name": "Claim status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Proposed, attempted, under evaluation, supported within stated bounds, contested, unsupported or reversed", "why_it_matters": "Separates intention and promotional language from assessed outcomes." }, { "name": "Intervention contribution", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed, uncertain, supported or challenged, with the supporting reasoning recorded", "why_it_matters": "A better outcome after an action does not by itself establish that the action caused it." }, { "name": "Trade-off profile", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Benefits, burdens and constraint breaches linked to criteria, affected parties and time horizons", "why_it_matters": "Reveals gains obtained by shifting costs or degrading other valued conditions." }, { "name": "Persistence of gain", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Not yet assessed, temporary, sustained over a stated interval, decaying or dependent on continuing support", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether retaining the intervention is enough to retain its benefits." } ], "affordances": [ "Clarify an improvement proposal by identifying its target, reference condition and intended gain.", "Compare proposed actions against shared criteria while preserving disputed evaluations.", "Choose a bounded trial and observations capable of challenging the expected benefit.", "Assess whether an observed gain is meaningful and attributable to the intervention.", "Identify displaced burdens, breached constraints and conditions requiring revision or reversal.", "Retain, adapt, extend or stop an intervention according to the evidence and persistence of its effects." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-of-better", "name": "Meaning of better", "description": "Establishes what the improvement claim evaluates and whose judgement it represents.", "rationale": "Improvement cannot be recognised from change alone; it requires a defensible evaluative basis.", "layers": [ { "id": "target-and-reference", "name": "Target and reference", "description": "Bounds the aspect being improved and the condition against which a gain is claimed.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-improvement-claim", "name": "Bounded improvement claim", "description": "Record the specific target aspect, starting condition and comparison reference without treating the entire target as improved.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exactly is being made better, and which aspects of the target does this claim cover?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-improvement-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Against which observed or estimated condition is the improvement being claimed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "bounded-improvement-claim-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "criteria-and-standpoints", "name": "Criteria and standpoints", "description": "Makes the direction of benefit and competing evaluations explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "situated-betterment", "name": "Situated betterment", "description": "Record what counts as better, who endorses each criterion and where judgements conflict.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which qualities must increase, decrease or otherwise change for this act to count as improvement?", "kind": "definition", "id": "situated-betterment-q01" }, { "text": "Who supplied or endorsed these criteria, and which affected parties dispute them?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "situated-betterment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "improving-intervention", "name": "Improving intervention", "description": "Describes the act and the expected connection between what is done and what becomes better.", "rationale": "The registry entry concerns an act, so the model must distinguish intervention from aspiration and outcome.", "layers": [ { "id": "action-and-mechanism", "name": "Action and mechanism", "description": "Identifies the concrete change and the proposed route to benefit.", "findings": [ { "id": "expected-route-to-gain", "name": "Expected route to gain", "description": "Record the action, its intended effect and assumptions that could explain success or failure.", "questions": [ { "text": "What action is undertaken to improve the target, and how is it expected to produce the intended gain?", "kind": "action", "id": "expected-route-to-gain-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence or reasoning supports this expected connection, and which assumptions remain untested?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "expected-route-to-gain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "attempt-and-achievement", "name": "Attempt and achievement", "description": "Separates intending betterment, executing an intervention and establishing a benefit.", "findings": [ { "id": "improvement-status", "name": "Improvement status", "description": "Record whether improvement is proposed, attempted or supported by outcome evidence, including failed and contested attempts.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does improvement here name the intention, the performed act or a demonstrated result?", "kind": "definition", "id": "improvement-status-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence would justify advancing or revising the current claim status?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "improvement-status-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-of-gain", "name": "Evidence of gain", "description": "Tests whether a meaningful benefit occurred and whether the act contributed to it.", "rationale": "An improvement claim needs to survive measurement limitations and alternative explanations.", "layers": [ { "id": "comparison-quality", "name": "Comparison quality", "description": "Assesses the comparability and practical significance of recorded outcomes.", "findings": [ { "id": "credible-benefit-comparison", "name": "Credible benefit comparison", "description": "Record comparable observations, uncertainty and the basis for judging a difference meaningful.", "questions": [ { "text": "Were the reference and resulting conditions assessed using comparable methods, populations and circumstances?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "credible-benefit-comparison-q01" }, { "text": "How large is the gain relative to uncertainty, ordinary variation and the stated threshold for a worthwhile benefit?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "credible-benefit-comparison-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "causal-contribution", "name": "Causal contribution", "description": "Examines whether the intervention explains the gain rather than merely preceding it.", "findings": [ { "id": "alternative-explanations", "name": "Alternative explanations", "description": "Record evidence about what would have happened without the act and other changes that could account for the outcome.", "questions": [ { "text": "What supports the claim that the target would have done less well without this intervention?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "alternative-explanations-q01" }, { "text": "Which concurrent changes, selection effects or observation effects could explain the apparent improvement?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "alternative-explanations-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "trade-offs-and-acceptability", "name": "Trade-offs and acceptability", "description": "Examines whether the claimed benefit remains acceptable when losses and affected parties are considered.", "rationale": "A narrow gain can conceal deterioration elsewhere or depend on an unresolved judgement about whose interests count.", "layers": [ { "id": "distribution-of-effects", "name": "Distribution of effects", "description": "Locates benefits and burdens across people, target components and time horizons.", "findings": [ { "id": "gain-and-displaced-burden", "name": "Gain and displaced burden", "description": "Record who or what benefits, who or what loses, and whether the intervention relocates a problem.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who or what experiences the gain, and where do additional costs, effort or harms fall?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "gain-and-displaced-burden-q01" }, { "text": "Does the claimed improvement depend on excluding a worsened condition elsewhere or later?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "gain-and-displaced-burden-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "acceptance-and-limits", "name": "Acceptance and limits", "description": "Connects competing criteria and constraints to a decision about the intervention.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-acceptance", "name": "Qualified acceptance", "description": "Record the rule and authority for accepting the gain, including unresolved disagreements and unacceptable losses.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which constraints or losses would make this intervention unacceptable despite its intended benefit?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-acceptance-q01" }, { "text": "Who may accept the trade-offs, and what decision is justified when affected parties disagree?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-acceptance-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "retention-and-further-improvement", "name": "Retention and further improvement", "description": "Determines whether gains persist and how the next action should respond to observed effects.", "rationale": "Improvement is incomplete as a decision model if it cannot distinguish a transient gain from a change worth sustaining or extending.", "layers": [ { "id": "durability-and-dependencies", "name": "Durability and dependencies", "description": "Tracks the conditions and continuing inputs required to preserve the benefit.", "findings": [ { "id": "sustained-gain", "name": "Sustained gain", "description": "Record the observation interval, evidence of decay and support on which the improvement depends.", "questions": [ { "text": "For how long and under which operating conditions has the gain been observed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "sustained-gain-q01" }, { "text": "What continuing effort or resources are required to preserve the gain, and how do they affect its value?", "kind": "action", "id": "sustained-gain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "revision-and-extension", "name": "Revision and extension", "description": "Uses evidence to choose whether to keep, modify, reverse or apply the intervention more widely.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-led-next-step", "name": "Evidence-led next step", "description": "Record decision triggers and the limits of transferring a demonstrated gain to another setting.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observations should trigger retention, revision, stopping or reversal of the intervention?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-led-next-step-q01" }, { "text": "Which conditions must be checked before expecting the same action to improve another target or setting?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "evidence-led-next-step-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": [ "What counts as better depends on the chosen criteria, baseline, stakeholders, and time horizon; these need not yield a single agreed judgment.", "The listed kinds overlap and do not constitute a universal taxonomy.", "Standards are recalled examples relevant to quality management; their exact wording, editions, and applicability require checking." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of improvement 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": [ "Incremental improvement", "Breakthrough improvement", "Continual improvement", "Process improvement", "Product improvement", "Organizational improvement" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of improvement 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": [ "ISO 9000, issued by the International Organization for Standardization, provides quality-management fundamentals and vocabulary, including improvement.", "ISO 9001, issued by the International Organization for Standardization, includes requirements concerning improvement within quality management systems." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of improvement 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": [ "Reducing defects and variation in manufacturing processes.", "Improving service reliability, accessibility, or response time.", "Revising products to improve usability, durability, or performance.", "Improving organizational workflows and coordination.", "Developing skills through practice, feedback, and corrective action." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of improvement 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": "Change in a specified outcome from baseline", "typical_range": "No universal range; whether an increase or decrease is better depends on the outcome.", "unit": "The outcome's unit" }, { "quantity": "Relative change from baseline", "typical_range": "Context-dependent; undefined for a zero baseline.", "unit": "%" }, { "quantity": "Persistence of an observed benefit", "typical_range": "Context-dependent and limited by the observation period.", "unit": "Time" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of improvement 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": [ "Treating any change, or an intention to improve, as evidence of actual improvement.", "Optimizing a proxy measure while worsening the outcome it is meant to represent.", "Attributing apparent gains to an intervention when they reflect noise, external changes, or regression to the mean.", "Improving one outcome or stakeholder's position while worsening another's.", "Achieving short-term gains that cannot be sustained or whose costs exceed their benefits." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of improvement 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": "change", "difference": "Change requires a difference between states; improvement additionally requires a favorable evaluation against criteria." }, { "name": "innovation", "difference": "Innovation involves introducing something new or significantly different; improvement can occur through established methods." }, { "name": "repair", "difference": "Repair restores damaged or faulty functioning; improvement can also raise functioning beyond its previous level." }, { "name": "optimization", "difference": "Optimization seeks the best feasible result under an objective and constraints; improvement requires only a better result than the baseline." }, { "name": "improved state", "difference": "An improved state is a resulting condition; this sense concerns the act that produces a better condition." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of improvement this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend improvement to require achieved betterment, or should unsuccessful improving acts be instances with an explicit failed status?", "Which established accounts of improvement should inform the treatment of preference satisfaction, capability gains, quality gains and movement toward a standard?", "When does restoration or maintenance constitute improvement in its own right, rather than merely overlap with it through a change from the current condition?", "What evidence and duration are sufficient to support an improvement claim in different domains, especially where controlled comparisons are unavailable?", "How should an overall improvement judgement be represented when criteria are incommensurable or affected parties cannot agree on acceptable trade-offs?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }, "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 improvement, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "the act of improving something", "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: autosuggestion, auto-suggestion, self-suggestion, re-establishment, tenderization, tenderisation, cleaning, cleansing, cleanup, disinfestation, spring-cleaning, scrub.", "79 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 improvement, 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": [ "autosuggestion", "auto-suggestion", "self-suggestion", "re-establishment", "tenderization", "tenderisation", "cleaning", "cleansing", "cleanup", "disinfestation", "spring-cleaning", "scrub" ] } ], "standing": "79 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 improvement from another, and a improvement 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 improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a improvement 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 improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement, 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 improvement and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a improvement 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 improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement 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 improvement?", "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 improvement?", "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 improvement 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 improvement and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 improvement is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a improvement, 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 improvement, 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 improvement 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 } } } }