{ "model": { "rank": 2480, "code": "thing-q11418", "model_id": "vr.tr.weak-interaction", "name": "weak interaction", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise weak-interaction contributions to physical processes, assess the evidence and applicable predictions, and select justified calculations or observations.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q11418/", "tier": 2, "score": 105, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 105, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q11418", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11418", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T09:32:05Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00572662, "turns": 1, "seconds": 19.7, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 111.8, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07b34-364e-7ff3-a864-c1413f720eeb\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: weak interaction\nRegistry id: vr.tr.weak-interaction\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry:" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q11418", "registryId": "vr.tr.weak-interaction", "name": "weak interaction", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q11418/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.weak-interaction", "name": "weak interaction", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise weak-interaction contributions to physical processes, assess the evidence and applicable predictions, and select justified calculations or observations.", "definition": "The weak interaction is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature: a short-range, parity-violating force mediated by massive W and Z bosons that changes fermion flavour and is responsible for beta decay and related processes.", "scope_statement": "For vr.tr.weak-interaction, this model owns the identification, physical conditions, observable consequences and evidential status of weak-interaction contributions; its state describes a specified process and assessment, rather than treating a fundamental interaction as an object with a lifecycle.", "in_scope": [ "Charged-current and neutral-current contributions to decays, scattering and particle production.", "Initial and final particle states, exchanged quantum numbers and relevant flavour relationships.", "Kinematic accessibility, suppression mechanisms and the validity of the chosen theoretical description.", "Rates, branching fractions, cross sections and symmetry-sensitive observables.", "Evidence supporting weak attribution, competing contributions and justified next investigative actions." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete particle identities and intrinsic properties, owned by particle models.", "Nuclear structure and isotope inventories, except their required inputs to weak-process predictions.", "Pure electromagnetic and strong processes, except as backgrounds or interfering contributions.", "Neutrino mass generation and vacuum oscillation dynamics, except their interfaces with weak production and detection.", "Detector construction, accelerator operation and laboratory safety procedures.", "The complete electroweak symmetry-breaking mechanism and speculative extensions as independently established interactions." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Require evidence for a W- or Z-mediated contribution, or its effective low-energy representation; a small measured force or rare event alone does not identify the weak interaction. [CERN: Standard Model](https://home.web.cern.ch/science/physics/standard-model/)", "Test whether a fermion vertex exchanges electric charge through a charged current or retains it through a neutral current; weak processes need not change the observed particle species. [PDG: Electroweak Model](https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-standard-model.pdf)", "For a claimed quark-flavour transition, test its compatibility with charged-current mixing or a specified higher-order mechanism rather than treating any particle transformation as weak. [PDG: Electroweak Model](https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-standard-model.pdf)", "Use process-specific parity-sensitive observables to test chiral weak couplings; do not require every weak event to exhibit a measurable asymmetry. [PDG: Electroweak Model](https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-standard-model.pdf)", "Check the energy regime before interpreting 'weak' as negligible: electromagnetic and weak effects become comparable at high energies. [CERN: Unified forces](https://home.web.cern.ch/science/physics/unified-forces/)" ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Process participants", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Initial and final particles or composite states, including antiparticle identity and unresolved products.", "why_it_matters": "Defines which transition is being assessed and enables conservation checks." }, { "name": "Weak contribution class", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Charged current; neutral current; combined weak contributions; unresolved.", "why_it_matters": "Selects candidate couplings and diagnostic signatures." }, { "name": "Mediator description", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Virtual W or Z; resonant W or Z; effective interaction; unresolved, with applicable perturbative order.", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an inferred exchange from being reported as direct observation of a mediator." }, { "name": "Kinematic scale", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Energy in eV, MeV or GeV; invariant momentum transfer q² in corresponding squared units, with sign convention.", "why_it_matters": "Determines accessible final states and the suitability of an approximation." }, { "name": "Flavour connection", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Participating flavours and applicable CKM or PMNS inputs, with basis and source.", "why_it_matters": "Makes flavour assignments and mixing assumptions explicit." }, { "name": "Polarisation specification", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Prepared or inferred helicity/polarisation; unpolarised; unknown, with chirality assumptions recorded separately.", "why_it_matters": "Supports interpretation of angular distributions and symmetry tests." }, { "name": "Transition accessibility", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Kinematically inaccessible; accessible; threshold-sensitive; unresolved, conditional on the specified environment.", "why_it_matters": "Separates unavailable channels from accessible channels with small probabilities." }, { "name": "Weak decay partial rate", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "s^-1, or partial width in energy units with conversion convention and uncertainty.", "why_it_matters": "Quantifies a decay channel without confusing it with the total decay rate." }, { "name": "Scattering cross section", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "m², barn or submultiples; differential variables, beam spectrum and cuts specified.", "why_it_matters": "Supports yield estimates and meaningful comparison between measurements." }, { "name": "Branching fraction", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Dimensionless fraction from 0 to 1, with channel definition and uncertainty.", "why_it_matters": "Relates a weak decay channel to competing decay pathways." }, { "name": "Attribution status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Predicted; candidate observation; supported contribution; upper limit; disfavoured explanation; unresolved.", "why_it_matters": "Controls whether an agent may classify, constrain or only propose a weak interpretation." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a specified process by its supported charged-current and neutral-current contributions.", "Check proposed channels against conservation laws, thresholds and explicitly stated selection rules.", "Choose a suitable effective or full electroweak calculation and identify missing physical inputs.", "Estimate rates or yields under declared conditions while propagating relevant uncertainties.", "Compare weak predictions with competing explanations and select discriminating observables.", "Recommend a calculation, measurement or external specialist model needed to resolve an attribution." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "pdg-electroweak", "title": "Review of Particle Physics: Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics", "url": "https://pdg.lbl.gov/", "what_it_supports": "Standard-model definition of the weak/electroweak interaction, W/Z mediation, charged vs neutral currents, and measured couplings.", "url_status": "live" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "weak-process-identity", "name": "Weak process identity", "description": "Record the physical transition and the specific weak contribution being asserted.", "rationale": "An agent must identify an interaction mechanism within a process, rather than label every rare decay or invisible final state as weak.", "layers": [ { "id": "transition-participants", "name": "Transition participants", "description": "Specify the states before and after the interaction.", "findings": [ { "id": "resolved-transition", "name": "Resolved transition", "description": "Record the reaction or decay, distinguishing observed products from inferred particles and constituent-level interpretations.", "questions": [ { "text": "What initial and final states define this channel, including neutrinos, antiparticles and unresolved radiation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "resolved-transition-q01" }, { "text": "Which participants were measured directly, inferred from missing quantities or supplied by a theoretical interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "resolved-transition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "current-and-mediator", "name": "Current and mediator", "description": "Identify the weak-current structure without overstating what was observed.", "findings": [ { "id": "weak-mechanism-assignment", "name": "Weak mechanism assignment", "description": "Record charged-current, neutral-current or combined attribution and whether the mediator is virtual, resonant or represented effectively.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which vertices or effective operators support the proposed weak-current assignment?", "kind": "definition", "id": "weak-mechanism-assignment-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this mechanism from an electromagnetic, strong or instrumental explanation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "weak-mechanism-assignment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "channel-access-and-suppression", "name": "Channel access and suppression", "description": "Record whether a proposed weak transition can occur and what controls its suppression.", "rationale": "A channel can be inaccessible, suppressed or experimentally unseen for different reasons that require different agent decisions.", "layers": [ { "id": "kinematic-and-conservation-checks", "name": "Kinematic and conservation checks", "description": "Assess the proposed transition against its available energy and conserved quantities.", "findings": [ { "id": "channel-accessibility", "name": "Channel accessibility", "description": "Record threshold calculations and conservation checks at the level appropriate to free particles, bound states or a medium.", "questions": [ { "text": "Do the specified states conserve electric charge, energy, momentum and angular momentum?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "channel-accessibility-q01" }, { "text": "What energy release or collision energy is available after relevant masses, binding energies and environmental effects are included?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "channel-accessibility-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "flavour-and-selection-rules", "name": "Flavour and selection rules", "description": "Identify the assumptions behind an allowed, forbidden or suppressed label.", "findings": [ { "id": "suppression-explanation", "name": "Suppression explanation", "description": "Record candidate mixing, helicity, phase-space, loop or nuclear-selection effects separately from an absolute prohibition.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which flavour factors, spin constraints or matrix elements control this channel in the adopted theory?", "kind": "definition", "id": "suppression-explanation-q01" }, { "text": "Does 'forbidden' mean kinematically impossible, absent at a specified perturbative order or suppressed under a named selection-rule convention?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "suppression-explanation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "electroweak-regime-and-calculation", "name": "Electroweak regime and calculation", "description": "Record the physical scales, approximation and inputs that make a weak-process prediction usable.", "rationale": "The agent needs a defensible calculation regime and must know when external nuclear or hadronic inputs limit precision.", "layers": [ { "id": "scale-and-propagator-treatment", "name": "Scale and propagator treatment", "description": "Specify the energy regime and mediator treatment.", "findings": [ { "id": "applicable-description", "name": "Applicable description", "description": "Record the chosen effective or explicit-mediator description and the accuracy required for the intended decision.", "questions": [ { "text": "What momentum-transfer and invariant-mass ranges must the calculation cover?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "applicable-description-q01" }, { "text": "At the required accuracy, is the selected effective interaction adequate, or must mediator propagation, widths and radiative corrections be retained?", "kind": "action", "id": "applicable-description-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "couplings-and-composite-inputs", "name": "Couplings and composite inputs", "description": "Connect the prediction to traceable parameters and target-dependent inputs.", "findings": [ { "id": "prediction-input-basis", "name": "Prediction input basis", "description": "Record adopted coupling and mixing inputs, parameter conventions, and any form factors, parton distributions or nuclear matrix elements.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which parameter determinations and composite-state calculations supply this prediction, and what versions and conventions do they use?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "prediction-input-basis-q01" }, { "text": "Which input uncertainties or correlations limit the comparison with observation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "prediction-input-basis-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "weak-observables-and-attribution", "name": "Weak observables and attribution", "description": "Record measurable consequences and how strongly they support a weak interpretation.", "rationale": "A predicted weak contribution becomes actionable through defined observables and an explicit account of competing contributions.", "layers": [ { "id": "rates-and-event-yields", "name": "Rates and event yields", "description": "Relate theoretical transition probabilities to reported measurements.", "findings": [ { "id": "normalised-channel-strength", "name": "Normalised channel strength", "description": "Record partial decay rates or cross sections with channel definitions, acceptance, exposure and uncertainties.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rate, width, branching fraction or cross section is measured, and over what final-state and kinematic definition?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "normalised-channel-strength-q01" }, { "text": "What flux, target population, luminosity, efficiency or live-time information is needed to translate that quantity into an event yield?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "normalised-channel-strength-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "competing-and-interfering-contributions", "name": "Competing and interfering contributions", "description": "Assess whether the measurement isolates weak physics or constrains a combined process.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-confidence", "name": "Attribution confidence", "description": "Record backgrounds, interference treatment and the inferential basis for claiming a weak contribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which alternative mechanisms produce the same signature, and what observations constrain them?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-confidence-q01" }, { "text": "Is the reported weak component separately defined by a consistent calculation, or must the observable be interpreted using combined amplitudes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-confidence-q02" }, { "text": "Does the evidence support a measured contribution, a candidate interpretation or only an upper limit?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "attribution-confidence-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "symmetry-tests-and-next-actions", "name": "Symmetry tests and next actions", "description": "Record symmetry-sensitive tests and the evidence needed before revising a weak-process interpretation.", "rationale": "Weak-interaction investigations require process-specific tests and disciplined handling of deviations from predictions.", "layers": [ { "id": "polarisation-and-conjugate-comparisons", "name": "Polarisation and conjugate comparisons", "description": "Define the measurements used to investigate parity or CP behaviour.", "findings": [ { "id": "symmetry-observable-definition", "name": "Symmetry observable definition", "description": "Record polarisation preparations, angular conventions and particle-antiparticle comparisons needed to interpret an asymmetry.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which angular, polarisation or conjugate-channel observable tests the claimed symmetry property?", "kind": "definition", "id": "symmetry-observable-definition-q01" }, { "text": "What acceptance, production or matter-related asymmetries must be controlled before interpreting the result?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "symmetry-observable-definition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-investigation", "name": "Interpretation and investigation", "description": "Connect uncertainty and discrepancies to proportionate next steps.", "findings": [ { "id": "justified-next-step", "name": "Justified next step", "description": "Record what can presently be concluded and which calculation, control sample or independent measurement would change that conclusion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which additional observable or improved calculation would best distinguish a missing conventional contribution from the proposed anomaly?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-next-step-q01" }, { "text": "What evidential threshold and unresolved dependencies govern whether the agent may classify the process, report a constraint or recommend further investigation?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-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-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Charged-current weak interaction (W± exchange; flavour-changing, e.g. beta decay, muon decay)", "Neutral-current weak interaction (Z0 exchange; flavour-conserving, e.g. neutrino scattering)", "Fermi (vector) transitions vs Gamow-Teller (axial-vector) transitions in nuclear beta decay", "Leptonic, semileptonic, and nonleptonic weak processes", "CP-violating weak processes (CKM/PMNS phases; kaon, B-meson, and neutrino sectors)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of weak interaction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend 'weak interaction' to cover the full weak gauge sector, including boson self-interactions, or primarily weak contributions to matter transitions?", "Which existing Vercy models already own electroweak unification, particle mixing and nuclear decay, and what references will prevent duplicate ownership?", "What accuracy-dependent criteria should govern switching from effective low-energy descriptions to explicit electroweak calculations across supported process families?", "Which sourced selection-rule conventions and nuclear or hadronic calculations are required before this model can support quantitative decisions about composite targets?", "What domain-specific evidence standards should distinguish candidate weak attribution, established contributions and credible deviations from the adopted theory?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 11, "questions": 22 } }, "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 weak interaction, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise weak-interaction contributions to physical processes, assess the evidence and applicable predictions, and select justified calculations or observations.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 105 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 weak 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": [], "standing": "Described in 105 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one weak interaction from another, and a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 weak interaction is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a weak 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 weak 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 weak 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 } } } }