{ "model": { "rank": 5380, "code": "thing-q189183", "model_id": "vr.tr.ad-hominem", "name": "ad hominem", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify person-directed argumentation, assess whether personal considerations bear on the disputed claim, and choose a proportionate response.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q189183/", "tier": 2, "score": 67, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "poisoning the well", "Bulverism" ], "aliasCount": 2, "merged": 2, "knownIn": 67, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q189183", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q189183", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T22:14:54Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 15.8, "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: 01a0883c-00d2-7211-9387-4501c6439d0e\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: ad hominem\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001 regi", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.6, "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: 01a0883c-00db-7833-b5a6-5d2c2ba46155\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: ad hominem\nRegistry id: vr.tr.ad-hominem\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCo" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q189183", "registryId": "vr.tr.ad-hominem", "name": "ad hominem", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q189183/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.ad-hominem", "name": "ad hominem", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify person-directed argumentation, assess whether personal considerations bear on the disputed claim, and choose a proportionate response.", "definition": "An ad hominem argument challenges a person's position by appealing to facts or allegations about that person rather than directly addressing the position's merits, and is fallacious when those considerations are irrelevant to the conclusion being challenged.", "scope_statement": "This model owns ad hominem as an argumentative move that uses considerations about a claim's proponent to challenge the claim, the proponent's credibility, or their standing in a discussion, while distinguishing fallacious dismissal from relevant credibility assessment.", "in_scope": [ "The claim being challenged and the person or group associated with it", "Personal allegations and the inferential connection asserted between them and the challenged claim", "Abusive, circumstantial, and tu quoque forms, allowing overlapping classifications", "Relevance of credibility, interests, conduct, and expertise to the particular argument", "Context-sensitive assessment and repair of person-directed argumentative moves" ], "out_of_scope": [ "A general taxonomy of logical fallacies", "Harassment and abuse that perform no argumentative function", "Comprehensive reputation profiles of the people involved", "Independent adjudication of the substantive disputed claim", "Legal determinations of defamation or liability", "The genetic fallacy where the alleged defect concerns an impersonal origin rather than a proponent" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A personal consideration must function as a reason to reject, discount, or exclude a contribution; an insult alone is insufficient.", "The move redirects evaluation toward a proponent's character, circumstances, conduct, or credibility rather than directly addressing the claim's supporting reasons.", "Relevant credibility scrutiny can weaken reliance on testimony without establishing that the testified claim is false.", "A hypocrisy charge becomes tu quoque when a person's inconsistent conduct is used to dismiss their position; merely documenting inconsistency does not establish this pattern.", "A criticism of demonstrated competence differs from an irrelevant personal attack when the contribution actually depends on competence in the relevant domain." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Challenged contribution", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Link to the proposition, argument, testimony, recommendation, or participation claim being challenged", "why_it_matters": "Assessment requires knowing exactly what the personal consideration is supposed to undermine." }, { "name": "Personal target", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Claim proponent, cited authority, witness, advocate, or associated group", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes criticism of a person from criticism of a proposition and exposes attacks through association." }, { "name": "Personal consideration", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Character, circumstances, interests, affiliation, conduct, competence, honesty, or other specified attribute", "why_it_matters": "Different allegations require different relevance and evidence checks." }, { "name": "Argumentative pattern", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque, mixed, other, or unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Supports pattern recognition without forcing mutually exclusive subtype assignments." }, { "name": "Intended inferential effect", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Claim declared false, support discounted, credibility reduced, standing denied, or unclear", "why_it_matters": "A reason to reduce confidence in a speaker does not automatically justify rejecting their claim." }, { "name": "Reliance on the proponent", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Independently assessable reasons, testimony-dependent, expertise-dependent, mixed, or unknown", "why_it_matters": "Personal reliability matters differently when evidence can be checked independently." }, { "name": "Allegation support", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Supported, contested, unsupported, contradicted, or not assessed", "why_it_matters": "The truth of the personal allegation and its relevance are separate assessment tasks." }, { "name": "Assessment status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Fallacious dismissal, relevant credibility challenge, mixed move, insufficient context, or disputed classification", "why_it_matters": "Prevents every personal criticism from being automatically labelled a fallacy." } ], "affordances": [ "Locate the personal allegation and reconstruct the inference it is used to support.", "Classify the argumentative pattern while retaining ambiguity and overlapping forms.", "Separate the evidential support for an allegation from its relevance to the challenged contribution.", "Determine whether independent evidence permits evaluation without relying on the attacked proponent.", "Draft a response that addresses relevant credibility concerns and returns to the substantive reasons.", "Record competing interpretations and defer classification when the conversational context is insufficient." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "attack-and-inference", "name": "Attack and inference", "description": "Identify what was said about whom and how it is used against a contribution.", "rationale": "Ad hominem is an argumentative relationship, so detecting negative language about a person is insufficient.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-and-target", "name": "Claim and target", "description": "Connect the disputed contribution to its proponent and the personal allegation.", "findings": [ { "id": "targeted-contribution", "name": "Targeted contribution", "description": "Record the precise contribution being challenged and distinguish its author from any cited witness or authority.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which proposition, argument, or testimony is the personal remark being used to challenge?", "kind": "definition", "id": "targeted-contribution-q01" }, { "text": "Does the remark target the proponent, a cited authority, or someone merely associated with them?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "targeted-contribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "inferential-bridge", "name": "Inferential bridge", "description": "Make the transition from a personal consideration to an argumentative conclusion explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "personal-premise-to-dismissal", "name": "Personal premise to dismissal", "description": "Represent the stated or reconstructed reason why the person's alleged attribute should affect acceptance of the contribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "What conclusion about truth, evidential weight, credibility, or standing follows from the personal allegation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "personal-premise-to-dismissal-q01" }, { "text": "Is that connection stated by the speaker or inferred by the analyst from surrounding turns?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "personal-premise-to-dismissal-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "person-directed-patterns", "name": "Person-directed patterns", "description": "Distinguish recurring forms by the personal premise and the role it plays.", "rationale": "Character attacks, interest-based dismissals, and hypocrisy responses require different diagnostic questions.", "layers": [ { "id": "character-and-circumstances", "name": "Character and circumstances", "description": "Examine attacks based on alleged personal defects, affiliations, incentives, or situations.", "findings": [ { "id": "defect-or-interest-as-rebuttal", "name": "Defect or interest as rebuttal", "description": "Separate derogatory characterization from arguments that a person's circumstances undermine their contribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the objection rely on an alleged personal defect, a situational interest, or both?", "kind": "definition", "id": "defect-or-interest-as-rebuttal-q01" }, { "text": "Is an affiliation or incentive treated as evidence of possible bias or as sufficient proof that the claim is false?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "defect-or-interest-as-rebuttal-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "hypocrisy-and-reciprocity", "name": "Hypocrisy and reciprocity", "description": "Examine attempts to answer a position by pointing to the proponent's inconsistent behavior.", "findings": [ { "id": "conduct-used-against-position", "name": "Conduct used against position", "description": "Identify whether inconsistency is used to reject a principle, challenge sincerity, or dispute authority to criticize.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which asserted position and observed behavior are alleged to conflict?", "kind": "definition", "id": "conduct-used-against-position-q01" }, { "text": "Does the inconsistency bear on the position's correctness, the speaker's sincerity, or their standing to criticize?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conduct-used-against-position-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "relevance-and-evidence", "name": "Relevance and evidence", "description": "Assess the support for personal allegations separately from their bearing on the argument.", "rationale": "A true personal allegation can be irrelevant, while a relevant concern can remain unsubstantiated.", "layers": [ { "id": "allegation-grounding", "name": "Allegation grounding", "description": "Track what supports the personal premise and what remains disputed.", "findings": [ { "id": "support-for-personal-premise", "name": "Support for personal premise", "description": "Retain the allegation as an attributed claim unless evidence warrants a stronger assessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "What accessible evidence supports or contradicts the alleged conduct, interest, or competence deficit?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "support-for-personal-premise-q01" }, { "text": "Is the allegation directly documented, reported by another party, or inferred from association?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "support-for-personal-premise-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "credibility-dependence", "name": "Credibility dependence", "description": "Determine whether acceptance depends on the particular person's reliability.", "findings": [ { "id": "relevance-to-reliance", "name": "Relevance to reliance", "description": "Evaluate whether the alleged personal feature affects testimony or expertise actually relied upon, and whether the proposed conclusion exceeds that effect.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can the contribution's supporting evidence be assessed independently of this person's honesty or expertise?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "relevance-to-reliance-q01" }, { "text": "Would the personal evidence justify reduced reliance, outright rejection, or neither in this particular context?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "relevance-to-reliance-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "dialogue-and-interpretation", "name": "Dialogue and interpretation", "description": "Preserve the context needed to distinguish an argumentative attack from quotation, abuse, or relevant examination.", "rationale": "The same personal remark can perform different functions depending on the surrounding exchange.", "layers": [ { "id": "conversational-function", "name": "Conversational function", "description": "Locate the move within the exchange and identify its practical argumentative role.", "findings": [ { "id": "attack-in-context", "name": "Attack in context", "description": "Record enough surrounding discourse to determine whether the remark rebuts, deflects, discredits, or merely expresses hostility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which preceding claim or challenge prompted the personal remark?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attack-in-context-q01" }, { "text": "Is the remark being advanced as a reason, quoted for analysis, used satirically, or expressed without an argumentative role?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attack-in-context-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-limits", "name": "Classification limits", "description": "Represent interpretive uncertainty and mixed argumentative content.", "findings": [ { "id": "mixed-and-underdetermined-moves", "name": "Mixed and underdetermined moves", "description": "Allow a passage to contain both substantive objections and irrelevant personal attacks without assigning one verdict to every component.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which parts of the passage address the evidence, and which rely on personal considerations?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "mixed-and-underdetermined-moves-q01" }, { "text": "What missing context could change the assessment from fallacious dismissal to relevant credibility scrutiny?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "mixed-and-underdetermined-moves-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-repair", "name": "Response and repair", "description": "Support actions that address the actual inferential defect or legitimate credibility concern.", "rationale": "Recognizing an ad hominem should help an agent continue the reasoning process without treating the label as a rebuttal.", "layers": [ { "id": "return-to-the-claim", "name": "Return to the claim", "description": "Recover the substantive issue and test it on its available support.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-preserving-repair", "name": "Claim-preserving repair", "description": "Separate the challenged proposition from the personal attack and request the missing connection when necessary.", "questions": [ { "text": "What response would ask how the personal allegation affects the specific premise or evidence under discussion?", "kind": "action", "id": "claim-preserving-repair-q01" }, { "text": "What independent reason can be evaluated without first resolving the dispute about the person?", "kind": "action", "id": "claim-preserving-repair-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "proportionate-credibility-response", "name": "Proportionate credibility response", "description": "Respond to relevant reliability concerns without making unsupported claims about truth or falsity.", "findings": [ { "id": "corroboration-and-limited-conclusions", "name": "Corroboration and limited conclusions", "description": "Choose corroboration, qualification, or deferred judgment according to the role of the contested source.", "questions": [ { "text": "Would independent corroboration or evidence of relevant competence resolve the credibility concern?", "kind": "action", "id": "corroboration-and-limited-conclusions-q01" }, { "text": "How should the response state that a defective attack does not establish the original claim as true?", "kind": "action", "id": "corroboration-and-limited-conclusions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This describes the argumentation sense; the supplied domain code does not establish a narrower sense.", "Taxonomies differ, and the listed kinds are not uniformly treated as mutually exclusive.", "Historical usage also includes arguments from an interlocutor's own commitments; a researcher should check whether the registry intends that broader sense." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of ad hominem 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": [ "Abusive ad hominem", "Circumstantial ad hominem", "Tu quoque" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of ad hominem 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": [ "Identifying irrelevant personal attacks in political debate, journalism and online discussion.", "Teaching informal logic, critical thinking and argument analysis.", "Evaluating whether challenges to a witness's or expert's credibility are relevant to reliance on their testimony." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of ad hominem 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 an allegation about a speaker's character as sufficient to refute their claim.", "Rejecting a claim solely because its advocate has an interest in its acceptance.", "Treating an advocate's hypocrisy as proof that their stated principle is false.", "Misclassifying relevant scrutiny of expertise, reliability or conflicts of interest as necessarily fallacious.", "Escalating disagreement into harassment or reputational harm." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of ad hominem 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": "Personal insult", "difference": "An insult need not support any conclusion; an ad hominem argument uses a personal consideration to undermine a position or its advocate's standing." }, { "name": "Genetic fallacy", "difference": "The genetic fallacy assesses a claim by its origin rather than its merits; ad hominem specifically focuses on a person associated with the claim." }, { "name": "Straw man", "difference": "A straw man attacks a distorted version of a position; ad hominem redirects attention toward the person advancing it." }, { "name": "Credibility assessment", "difference": "Credibility assessment concerns whether someone is a reliable source for the matter at hand; it does not by itself establish that their claim is false." }, { "name": "Poisoning the well", "difference": "Poisoning the well preemptively discredits a source so that subsequent contributions will be dismissed; it can function as an anticipatory ad hominem." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of ad hominem this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Should the registry use ad hominem for all person-directed argumentation or reserve the label for fallacious instances while linking legitimate credibility challenges to a neighboring model?", "Which researched taxonomy should govern the treatment of poisoning the well, guilt by association, and attacks on standing as subtypes or related patterns?", "What evidence and contextual criteria should distinguish justified source discounting from excessive dismissal across scientific, political, and everyday discussions?", "How reliably can annotators reconstruct an implicit personal-to-claim inference from short or fragmented exchanges?", "Where should this model draw the boundary between tu quoque reasoning and legitimate challenges to a speaker's authority to blame?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 25 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "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 ad hominem, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify person-directed argumentation, assess whether personal considerations bear on the disputed claim, and choose a proportionate response.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: poisoning the well, Bulverism.", "2 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 67 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 ad hominem, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "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": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "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": [ "poisoning the well", "Bulverism" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 67 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 2 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 ad hominem from another, and a ad hominem 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a ad hominem 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a ad hominem says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a ad hominem contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a ad hominem, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a ad hominem, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a ad hominem is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a ad hominem and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a ad hominem, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a ad hominem, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a ad hominem is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What ad hominem studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does ad hominem take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does ad hominem establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where ad hominem is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark ad hominem as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place ad hominem, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a ad hominem 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 ad hominem and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 ad hominem is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a ad hominem, 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 ad hominem, 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 ad hominem 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 } } } }