{ "model": { "rank": 3842, "code": "thing-q104934", "model_id": "vr.tr.fundamental-interaction", "name": "fundamental interaction", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a proposed fundamental interaction, assess its theoretical and empirical standing, and choose an appropriate description for a physical situation.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q104934/", "tier": 2, "score": 81, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "elementary particle interaction" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 81, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q104934", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104934", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T18:53:14Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 20.4, "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: 01a08783-62df-77e0-a582-293bd2bbd222\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: fundamental interaction\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 00", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.2, "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: 01a08783-62ea-77c3-8cc9-2753396e3af3\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: fundamental interaction\nRegistry id: vr.tr.fundamental-interaction\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded in" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q104934", "registryId": "vr.tr.fundamental-interaction", "name": "fundamental interaction", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q104934/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.fundamental-interaction", "name": "fundamental interaction", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a proposed fundamental interaction, assess its theoretical and empirical standing, and choose an appropriate description for a physical situation.", "definition": "A fundamental interaction is one of the four currently established classes of physical interaction - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak - through which physical systems influence one another and which are not generally treated as residual effects of other interactions.", "scope_statement": "This model owns fundamental interaction in the physics sense: an interaction treated as irreducible within a stated theoretical framework, including its identity, coupling, physical effects, evidence and limits; it preserves the supplied ACT / ACT.ACT placement without treating that placement as a physical classification.", "in_scope": [ "The conventional gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak interaction categories and their framework-dependent relationships", "Criteria for distinguishing fundamental interactions from effective forces and emergent behaviour", "Participating entities, coupling properties and interaction-specific selection rules", "Theoretical descriptions, domains of applicability and experimentally accessible signatures", "Proposed additional interactions, explicitly distinguished from established interactions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete models of particles, fields or spacetime as entities in their own right", "Contact forces, friction and other effective interactions as independently fundamental categories", "Detailed experimental apparatus and laboratory operating procedures", "Complete histories or encyclopaedic treatments of physical theories", "Social interaction, software interaction and other nonphysical senses of interaction" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A candidate must specify a physical coupling or dynamical influence; a correlation alone does not identify an interaction.", "Fundamentality must be asserted relative to a named framework, rather than inferred from an effect being strong, ubiquitous or difficult to explain.", "A force such as friction does not qualify as a separate fundamental interaction when its relevant description derives it from underlying interactions.", "An interaction is distinguished from its mediator or field: a photon is not itself electromagnetism.", "A shared theoretical description does not automatically erase experimentally useful distinctions, as illustrated by electromagnetic and weak phenomena within electroweak theory." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Interaction identity", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "gravitational | electromagnetic | strong | weak | proposed additional interaction", "why_it_matters": "Separates conventional categories from hypotheses without treating every observed force as a new interaction." }, { "name": "Fundamentality status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "treated as fundamental within named framework | effective or emergent within named framework | disputed | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a framework-dependent classification from becoming an unconditional claim about nature." }, { "name": "Theoretical description", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named theory, formulation, approximation and applicable regime", "why_it_matters": "Determines which representations and predictions an agent may use." }, { "name": "Coupled properties", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Relevant charges, currents, energy-momentum or other theory-specified coupling quantities", "why_it_matters": "Identifies what participates and prevents particle names alone from substituting for coupling rules." }, { "name": "Coupling strength", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Theory-defined parameter with units or dimensionless convention, energy scale and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Makes strength comparisons meaningful only under stated definitions and conditions." }, { "name": "Characteristic range", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Metres where a range is well defined; otherwise a qualified description with screening, confinement and regime conditions", "why_it_matters": "Avoids treating observable reach, mediator mass and fundamental field behaviour as interchangeable." }, { "name": "Empirical standing", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "established phenomenon | supported candidate | constrained hypothesis | excluded within specified parameter region | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Separates evidence for an interaction from evidence for a particular mechanism or formulation." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a described phenomenon by candidate underlying interactions while retaining multiple contributions where necessary.", "Select a theoretical description appropriate to the relevant energy, distance and precision.", "Identify participating entities and determine whether a proposed process is permitted within a stated theory.", "Compare interaction strengths only after aligning quantities, scales and conventions.", "Translate a proposed additional interaction into observable signatures and bounded tests.", "Explain when available evidence warrants a prediction, an approximation or an unresolved classification." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-fundamentality", "name": "Identity and fundamentality", "description": "Establishes what interaction is being represented and the framework within which it counts as fundamental.", "rationale": "The word fundamental can indicate a working theoretical classification or a stronger claim about irreducibility, and those claims must remain distinguishable.", "layers": [ { "id": "physical-sense", "name": "Physical sense", "description": "Fixes the meaning of interaction and separates its identity from a particular manifestation.", "findings": [ { "id": "interaction-identity-test", "name": "Interaction identity test", "description": "Record whether the subject is an interaction category, an observed effect, a field or a mediator before assigning it to this model.", "questions": [ { "text": "What physical coupling or dynamical influence does this name denote?", "kind": "definition", "id": "interaction-identity-test-q01" }, { "text": "Is the described subject the interaction itself, or a particle, field or effective force associated with it?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "interaction-identity-test-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "framework-relative-status", "name": "Framework-relative status", "description": "Records the grounds and limits of a fundamentality claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "irreducibility-claim", "name": "Irreducibility claim", "description": "Attach fundamentality to a named framework and distinguish conventional classification from an argument that no deeper account is possible.", "questions": [ { "text": "Within which framework is this interaction treated as irreducible?", "kind": "definition", "id": "irreducibility-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Which source or research position supports that classification, and what competing account challenges it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "irreducibility-claim-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "coupling-and-participation", "name": "Coupling and participation", "description": "Describes what couples, how strongly it couples and which processes the coupling permits.", "rationale": "An agent cannot infer participation merely from proximity or from a loose description of attraction and repulsion.", "layers": [ { "id": "coupling-properties", "name": "Coupling properties", "description": "Identifies the quantities through which entities participate in the interaction.", "findings": [ { "id": "participation-conditions", "name": "Participation conditions", "description": "Record the theory-specific charges, currents or other quantities that enter the coupling, including conditions for absent or suppressed participation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which properties of an entity determine its coupling to this interaction in the selected theory?", "kind": "definition", "id": "participation-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "Does apparent nonparticipation mean no coupling, a suppressed process or an effect below measurement sensitivity?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "participation-conditions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "strength-and-process-rules", "name": "Strength and process rules", "description": "Connects coupling parameters to allowed processes without reducing every interaction to a force law.", "findings": [ { "id": "parameterised-process-assessment", "name": "Parameterised process assessment", "description": "Record coupling conventions, scale dependence and applicable conservation or selection rules before assessing a proposed process.", "questions": [ { "text": "What coupling parameter is used, at what energy scale and with which units or normalisation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "parameterised-process-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Which conservation laws or selection rules permit, suppress or forbid the proposed process within this description?", "kind": "action", "id": "parameterised-process-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "theory-and-regime", "name": "Theory and regime", "description": "Organises alternative mathematical descriptions and the conditions under which each can support reasoning.", "rationale": "Classical forces, quantum field descriptions and geometric gravity do not supply interchangeable explanatory objects.", "layers": [ { "id": "representation", "name": "Representation", "description": "Records how a theory represents the interaction and which representational elements have independent empirical support.", "findings": [ { "id": "field-mediator-and-geometry", "name": "Field, mediator and geometry", "description": "Keep force, field, quantum mediator and spacetime geometry descriptions tied to their frameworks; distinguish an established interaction from a hypothetical mediator.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the selected description represent this interaction through a force, a field, quantum exchange, spacetime geometry or a combination?", "kind": "definition", "id": "field-mediator-and-geometry-q01" }, { "text": "Which proposed mediators or mechanisms have direct evidence, and which remain theoretical?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "field-mediator-and-geometry-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "validity-and-unification", "name": "Validity and unification", "description": "Records approximation limits and relationships between interaction categories across regimes.", "findings": [ { "id": "regime-dependent-description", "name": "Regime-dependent description", "description": "Specify the conditions for using a description and distinguish established theoretical relationships from proposed further unification.", "questions": [ { "text": "At the relevant energy, distance and precision, which description is justified and which neglected effects matter?", "kind": "action", "id": "regime-dependent-description-q01" }, { "text": "How does the framework relate this interaction to others, and is that relationship established or hypothetical?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "regime-dependent-description-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "manifestations-and-attribution", "name": "Manifestations and attribution", "description": "Connects interaction categories to observable effects while accounting for composite systems and competing contributions.", "rationale": "Observable forces and outcomes can combine several interactions or express effective behaviour rather than reveal a single fundamental coupling directly.", "layers": [ { "id": "observable-signatures", "name": "Observable signatures", "description": "Identifies quantities through which an interaction can be inferred in a particular setting.", "findings": [ { "id": "signature-selection", "name": "Signature selection", "description": "Choose relevant observables such as scattering distributions, transition or decay rates, deflections or energy shifts, with a theory linking them to the interaction.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observable would change if the proposed interaction contribution were absent or altered?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "signature-selection-q01" }, { "text": "What alternative interaction or background process could produce a similar signature?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "signature-selection-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "effective-behaviour", "name": "Effective behaviour", "description": "Separates underlying interactions from their large-scale, residual or environment-dependent manifestations.", "findings": [ { "id": "range-and-emergence", "name": "Range and emergence", "description": "Record whether observed behaviour reflects the underlying coupling, screening, confinement, residual interactions or collective effects.", "questions": [ { "text": "What determines the observed distance dependence, and under what conditions is a characteristic range meaningful?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "range-and-emergence-q01" }, { "text": "Is this effect a distinct fundamental interaction or an effective manifestation of an already represented interaction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "range-and-emergence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-permitted-inference", "name": "Evidence and permitted inference", "description": "Tracks support for interaction claims and limits the conclusions an agent draws from measurements.", "rationale": "Evidence for a physical effect, a coupling parameter and a complete theoretical account can have different strengths.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-specific-evidence", "name": "Claim-specific evidence", "description": "Associates each substantive claim with the measurement or argument that supports it.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-target", "name": "Evidence target", "description": "Distinguish evidence that an interaction occurs from evidence for its mediator, coupling law or proposed unification.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact claim does the cited observation test: existence, coupling strength, mediator properties or theoretical structure?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-target-q01" }, { "text": "What uncertainties and model assumptions limit that inference?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "evidence-target-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "additional-interaction-tests", "name": "Additional interaction tests", "description": "Makes proposals for new interactions testable without presenting them as established categories.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-hypothesis-decision", "name": "Bounded hypothesis decision", "description": "Record a candidate interaction's predicted departures and the parameter regions tested; interpret null results within those limits.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observable departure from the baseline theory would discriminate this candidate interaction?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "bounded-hypothesis-decision-q01" }, { "text": "Given the tested parameter region and sensitivity, should an agent retain, constrain or reject this specific hypothesis?", "kind": "action", "id": "bounded-hypothesis-decision-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": [ "The intended sense is fundamental interaction in physics; the supplied domain code alone does not establish that sense.", "The conventional count of four coexists with electroweak unification; gravity is described by general relativity and is outside the Standard Model of particle physics.", "This is recall rather than source-checked research; no identifiers or regulatory standards are asserted." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of fundamental interaction 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": [ "Gravitational interaction", "Electromagnetic interaction", "Strong interaction", "Weak interaction" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of fundamental interaction 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": [ "Electromagnetic interaction underlies electrical circuits, optics and chemical bonding.", "Strong interaction binds quarks into hadrons and, through its residual effects, binds atomic nuclei.", "Weak interaction governs beta decay and contributes to stellar nuclear reactions.", "Gravitational interaction is used to predict orbits and model stars, galaxies and cosmological evolution." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of fundamental interaction 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": "Electromagnetic coupling expressed by the fine-structure constant", "typical_range": "Approximately 1/137 in the low-energy limit; its effective value depends on energy scale.", "unit": "dimensionless" }, { "quantity": "Characteristic range of the weak interaction", "typical_range": "On the order of 10^-18 m, associated with the masses of the W and Z bosons.", "unit": "m" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of fundamental interaction 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": [ "Quoting relative interaction strengths without specifying energy scale and participating particles can mislead.", "Confusing the strong interaction between quarks with the residual nuclear interaction obscures their different effective ranges.", "Treating gravity as an experimentally established quantum interaction overstates current knowledge.", "Equating every interaction with a classical force misses processes such as particle creation, annihilation and decay." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of fundamental interaction 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": "Force", "difference": "A force describes momentum change in a mechanical account; an interaction also encompasses processes that are not adequately described by a classical force." }, { "name": "Electroweak interaction", "difference": "Electroweak theory provides a unified description of electromagnetic and weak interactions rather than adding a fifth established interaction." }, { "name": "Residual nuclear interaction", "difference": "The interaction between nucleons is an effective consequence of the strong interaction, rather than a separate fundamental interaction." }, { "name": "Fundamental particle", "difference": "A fundamental particle is an elementary constituent or excitation; a fundamental interaction describes how physical systems couple." }, { "name": "Fifth force", "difference": "A fifth force is a proposed additional fundamental interaction, whereas the four listed interactions are established." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of fundamental interaction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference sources and research positions should anchor the definition of fundamentality, especially where effective or emergent accounts challenge it?", "Does an existing Vercy world model already own this physical concept, requiring this registry entry to link to it?", "How should the registry's ACT / ACT.ACT placement connect to physical-domain models without silently changing its authoritative classification?", "How should electroweak relationships and proposed further unification be represented while retaining useful identities for electromagnetic and weak phenomena?", "Which benchmark measurements and comparison conventions should the researched model use for coupling strength, range and evidence status?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }, "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. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "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 fundamental interaction, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise a proposed fundamental interaction, assess its theoretical and empirical standing, and choose an appropriate description for a physical situation.", "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: elementary particle interaction.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 81 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "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 fundamental interaction, 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.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "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": [ "elementary particle interaction" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 81 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 1 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 fundamental interaction from another, and a fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction?", "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 fundamental interaction?", "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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 fundamental interaction is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction, 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 fundamental interaction 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 } } } }