{ "model": { "rank": 5921, "code": "thing-q190044", "model_id": "vr.tr.technocracy", "name": "technocracy", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise technocratic governance, assess how expertise becomes governing authority, and identify actions permitted by its mandate and accountability arrangements.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Society, people and institutions", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "SOC", "domain": "SOC.ORG", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q190044/", "tier": 2, "score": 64, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "biotechnocracy" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 64, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.technocracy", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q190044", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q190044", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T10:06:29Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00293896, "turns": 1, "seconds": 44.6, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 89.9, "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: 01a07b54-07f9-79b2-8ed1-7935e33ab70e\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: technocracy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.technocracy\nPlane / domain: SOC / SOC.ORG\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q190044", "registryId": "vr.tr.technocracy", "name": "technocracy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "SOC.ORG" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q190044/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.technocracy", "name": "technocracy", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise technocratic governance, assess how expertise becomes governing authority, and identify actions permitted by its mandate and accountability arrangements.", "definition": "Technocracy is a mode of political and organizational authority in which binding decisions are assigned to people selected for specialized technical competence rather than for electoral mandate, party office, or inherited rank.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the arrangement through which specialised expertise justifies and exercises authority over collective decisions, including its jurisdiction, expert selection, treatment of contested goals, and mechanisms for challenge and revision.", "in_scope": [ "The decisions and jurisdictions in which expertise confers governing authority", "Selection, validation, replacement, and independence of expert decision-makers", "Translation of evidence, models, and technical criteria into binding decisions", "Allocation of authority over policy goals, constraints, and implementation", "Public justification, contestation, oversight, and correction of expert rule" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete constitutional structure or regime classification of a state", "Routine administration without authority grounded in specialised expertise", "Scientific research methods and the truth of individual scientific claims", "Professional licensing and occupational standards outside governing appointments", "The substantive design of particular economic, environmental, or health policies", "Automated decision systems considered independently of their governing authority" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify decisions experts can make binding rather than merely advise on; expert consultation alone does not establish technocratic authority.", "Check whether specialised competence is an explicit basis for allocating authority, rather than authority arising solely from election, ownership, seniority, or administrative office.", "Determine whether technical assessments can settle or constrain collective choices; distinguish this power from supplying evidence to decision-makers who retain discretion.", "Trace who selects objectives and acceptable tradeoffs; distinguish delegated technical implementation from expert authority to redefine political ends.", "Verify exercised authority through appointments, mandates, and decisions; a claim to be scientific or efficient is insufficient evidence by itself." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Authority locus", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Expert cabinet; specialised agency; governing council; distributed expert bodies; hybrid arrangement; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Locates the institutions whose powers and decisions must be examined." }, { "name": "Decision jurisdiction", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to policy domains, affected populations, territories, and decision classes", "why_it_matters": "Prevents authority in one field from being mistaken for authority over the whole polity." }, { "name": "Expert decision power", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Advisory only; agenda control; binding rulemaking; implementation discretion; veto; final decision; mixed", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes expert influence from governing authority." }, { "name": "Expertise qualification basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Credentials; professional experience; peer recognition; demonstrated performance; appointment-based assertion; mixed; undocumented", "why_it_matters": "Makes the claim to competence inspectable without treating credentials as proof of sound judgment." }, { "name": "Control over policy ends", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Externally specified; jointly negotiated; expert-defined; contested; undocumented", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether experts choose methods, goals, or both." }, { "name": "Mandate status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Proposed; active; under review; expired; suspended; revoked; disputed", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether an otherwise technically justified action is currently authorised." }, { "name": "Appointment and removal authority", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to appointing bodies, removal bodies, eligibility rules, and procedures", "why_it_matters": "Reveals dependence, insulation, and available routes for replacing decision-makers." }, { "name": "Model dependence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Informative; presumptive default; binding threshold; automatic trigger; mixed; undocumented", "why_it_matters": "Shows how strongly analytical outputs constrain governing decisions." }, { "name": "Decision review coverage", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Percentage of a defined set of binding decisions eligible for independent review during a specified period", "why_it_matters": "Measures the reach of correction mechanisms while requiring separate assessment of their effectiveness." }, { "name": "Mandate duration", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Days between mandate commencement and scheduled expiry, or explicitly indefinite", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes temporary delegation from continuing authority and identifies renewal points." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether an arrangement exhibits technocratic authority and identify the evidence supporting that assessment.", "Map which decisions experts may advise on, make, veto, or implement under the current mandate.", "Expose value judgments embedded in technical objectives, indicators, thresholds, and models.", "Compare expertise claims with appointment criteria, disciplinary coverage, and conflicts of interest.", "Identify authorised routes to request justification, challenge a decision, revise a model, or escalate a dispute.", "Flag mandate expiry, unsupported certainty, jurisdictional overreach, and conditions requiring human review." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "src-1", "title": "Technocracy", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy", "what_it_supports": "Core definition, historical movement, and neighbouring concepts", "url_status": "live" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "expertise-as-authority", "name": "Expertise as authority", "description": "Records where a claim to specialised competence becomes power over collective decisions.", "rationale": "Technocracy must be distinguished from ordinary expert advice and from governance that merely uses technical language.", "layers": [ { "id": "authority-threshold", "name": "Authority threshold", "description": "Separates knowledge provision from enforceable decision power.", "findings": [ { "id": "expert-power-test", "name": "Expert power test", "description": "Record evidence of decisions experts can settle, constrain, or block because of their recognised expertise.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which collective decisions can experts make binding or prevent, rather than merely recommend?", "kind": "definition", "id": "expert-power-test-q01" }, { "text": "Which mandates and observed decisions establish that specialised expertise is a basis of this power?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "expert-power-test-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "jurisdiction-and-delegation", "name": "Jurisdiction and delegation", "description": "Locates the limits and origin of expert governing authority.", "findings": [ { "id": "delegated-power-envelope", "name": "Delegated power envelope", "description": "Record the subjects, populations, duration, and reserved decisions defining the expert body's mandate.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which decisions remain reserved to elected bodies, courts, affected communities, or other authorities?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "delegated-power-envelope-q01" }, { "text": "Who may expand, renew, suspend, or revoke the expert mandate, and through what procedure?", "kind": "action", "id": "delegated-power-envelope-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "expert-selection-and-independence", "name": "Expert selection and independence", "description": "Records how governing experts qualify, enter office, and remain answerable for their competence and interests.", "rationale": "Authority justified by expertise requires scrutiny of who counts as an expert and who controls that designation.", "layers": [ { "id": "qualification-and-composition", "name": "Qualification and composition", "description": "Examines the relationship between required expertise and the composition of the governing body.", "findings": [ { "id": "competence-coverage", "name": "Competence coverage", "description": "Record appointment criteria and whether relevant disciplines and forms of practical knowledge are represented.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence of competence is required for appointment, and who validates it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "competence-coverage-q01" }, { "text": "Which forms of knowledge needed for the body's decisions are absent or excluded by its eligibility rules?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "competence-coverage-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "dependence-and-conflicts", "name": "Dependence and conflicts", "description": "Examines influences that may compromise or redirect expert judgment.", "findings": [ { "id": "independence-conditions", "name": "Independence conditions", "description": "Record appointment dependencies, financial interests, employment ties, and safeguards relevant to governing decisions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which appointing, funding, or employment relationships could influence the experts' decisions?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "independence-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "What disclosure, recusal, replacement, or review procedure applies when a relevant conflict is identified?", "kind": "action", "id": "independence-conditions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "technical-reasoning-and-political-choice", "name": "Technical reasoning and political choice", "description": "Records how goals, evidence, models, and distributional judgments enter expert decisions.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish technical assessment from choices about whose interests and values govern the assessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "ends-and-tradeoffs", "name": "Ends and tradeoffs", "description": "Makes authority over objectives and acceptable sacrifices explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "objective-setting-authority", "name": "Objective-setting authority", "description": "Record who chooses policy goals, ranks competing objectives, and accepts burdens imposed on different groups.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who authorises the objectives and tradeoffs that the experts are expected to optimise?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "objective-setting-authority-q01" }, { "text": "When does changing an objective, weighting, or acceptable burden require renewed political authorisation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "objective-setting-authority-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-to-decision", "name": "Evidence to decision", "description": "Traces how analytical methods support or determine governing choices.", "findings": [ { "id": "analytical-decision-chain", "name": "Analytical decision chain", "description": "Record the data, assumptions, indicators, uncertainty, and decision rules linking analysis to action.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which datasets, model versions, assumptions, and decision rules support the decision under examination?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "analytical-decision-chain-q01" }, { "text": "How does the recommended action change across plausible assumptions, uncertainty ranges, and competing expert assessments?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "analytical-decision-chain-q02" }, { "text": "Who may override a model output, and what justification must accompany that override?", "kind": "action", "id": "analytical-decision-chain-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "legitimacy-and-contestation", "name": "Legitimacy and contestation", "description": "Records the justification for expert rule and the ability of affected people to question its decisions.", "rationale": "Technical competence alone does not specify consent, representation, or the right to challenge governing authority.", "layers": [ { "id": "authorisation-and-public-reasons", "name": "Authorisation and public reasons", "description": "Examines the documented basis for accepting expert authority and the reasons offered for its exercise.", "findings": [ { "id": "legitimacy-claims", "name": "Legitimacy claims", "description": "Record claimed grounds of authority separately from evidence that those grounds are accepted or legally established.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is authority justified through delegation, consent, competence, performance, emergency necessity, or a documented combination?", "kind": "definition", "id": "legitimacy-claims-q01" }, { "text": "What records establish the claimed authorisation, and what evidence documents acceptance or contestation by affected groups?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "legitimacy-claims-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "challenge-and-remedy", "name": "Challenge and remedy", "description": "Examines whether technical and political objections can produce review or correction.", "findings": [ { "id": "effective-contestation", "name": "Effective contestation", "description": "Record who can challenge decisions, what kinds of objections are admissible, and which remedies are available.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can affected people challenge the chosen goals and distributional effects as well as technical errors?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "effective-contestation-q01" }, { "text": "Which body can require disclosure, reconsideration, suspension, or reversal, and how is that process initiated?", "kind": "action", "id": "effective-contestation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "performance-and-mandate-correction", "name": "Performance and mandate correction", "description": "Records whether expert governance meets its stated aims and how failure changes methods or authority.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish successful administration from unsupported performance claims and know when correction is authorised.", "layers": [ { "id": "outcome-assessment", "name": "Outcome assessment", "description": "Evaluates results against authorised goals while exposing uncertainty and uneven effects.", "findings": [ { "id": "performance-evidence", "name": "Performance evidence", "description": "Record outcome measures, comparison baselines, affected-group results, and limits on attributing outcomes to expert governance.", "questions": [ { "text": "Against which authorised targets and comparison baselines are results assessed, over what period?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "performance-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "How do benefits, burdens, and prediction errors differ across affected groups, and how uncertain is attribution to the governing arrangement?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "performance-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "revision-and-exit", "name": "Revision and exit", "description": "Identifies triggers and procedures for correcting expert decisions or ending delegated authority.", "findings": [ { "id": "correction-triggers", "name": "Correction triggers", "description": "Record conditions requiring model revision, independent review, personnel change, or return of powers to another authority.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observed failures, changed conditions, or mandate deadlines trigger mandatory review?", "kind": "definition", "id": "correction-triggers-q01" }, { "text": "Which actor may revise the technical method, replace the experts, or terminate the delegation after a trigger is met?", "kind": "action", "id": "correction-triggers-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": [ "historical Technocracy movement (Technocracy Inc., energy-certificate governance)", "caretaker or crisis technocratic cabinet", "regulatory and independent-agency technocracy", "party-state engineering elite (e.g. PRC cadre composition)", "corporate or industrial technocracy", "supranational administrative technocracy (e.g. EU Commission/agencies)", "epistemic/expert-committee governance", "techno-authoritarian developmental state" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Wikidata", "value_or_pattern": "Q188158", "note": "technocracy as form of government" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Appointment of non-partisan expert cabinets during fiscal or constitutional crises (Italy 2011, Greece 2011, Czech Republic 2009-10).", "Staffing of independent central banks, competition authorities, and food/drug regulators with career specialists whose legal mandate is technical rather than representative.", "Selection of governing elites by engineering or scientific credential, as in several East Asian developmental states and in periods of PRC Politburo composition.", "Design of energy-accounting and non-price distribution schemes by the 1930s North American Technocracy movement." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "share of cabinet ministers without prior elected office", "typical_range": "0-100 in labelled technocratic cabinets; often 30-70 in mixed cabinets", "unit": "percent of ministers" }, { "quantity": "share of top leadership with STEM or professional-technical degrees", "typical_range": "high-teens to majority depending on polity and cohort", "unit": "percent of persons" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Democratic deficit: decisions insulated from electoral contestability and public reason-giving.", "Goal displacement: optimizing measurable technical KPIs while neglecting distributional and value conflicts.", "Capture: experts aligned with industry, ministry, or party rather than independent competence.", "Crisis legitimacy collapse when technocratic cabinets cannot convert emergency mandate into lasting consent.", "Epistemic overreach: treating political trade-offs as if they were engineering problems with a unique solution." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "North America: 'Technocracy' still strongly evokes the 1930s Technocracy Inc. movement and energy-certificate proposals.", "Europe: usage centres on non-partisan expert cabinets and EU-level administrative expertise.", "East Asia: often describes engineer-heavy party-state or developmental elites rather than caretaker cabinets.", "Latin America: frequently paired with IMF/World Bank reform cabinets and 'técnicos' versus 'políticos'." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "name": "meritocracy", "difference": "Meritocracy ranks people by general desert or tested ability across offices; technocracy assigns a class of offices specifically because the task is framed as technical expertise." }, { "name": "bureaucracy", "difference": "Bureaucracy is rule through hierarchical office and procedure; a bureaucracy may be legal-rational without being staffed by domain scientists or engineers." }, { "name": "epistocracy", "difference": "Epistocracy allocates political power by claimed knowledge or competence tests of the citizenry; technocracy allocates it to occupational specialists inside the state or firm." }, { "name": "technocracy movement / Technocracy Inc.", "difference": "The proper-noun movement is one historical programme (energy certificates, continental technical directorate); the common-noun political form is broader." }, { "name": "authoritarianism", "difference": "Authoritarian rule concentrates power and suppresses contestation; it may or may not select rulers for technical skill. Technocracy can exist inside democracies as delegated expert bodies." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of technocracy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Should this registry entry cover technocracy as a political doctrine as well as an operating governance arrangement, and how should those uses be distinguished within one model?", "What minimum combination of expertise-based appointment and binding decision power warrants identifying an arrangement as technocratic?", "How should the model represent cases where formal political oversight remains intact but expert control of information or agendas substantially narrows available choices?", "Which criteria can assess relevant expertise and independence across jurisdictions without privileging one credential system or discipline?", "How should evaluation separate the effects of technocratic authority from policy content, institutional capacity, and external circumstances?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 28 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "organisation or institution", "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 technocracy, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise technocratic governance, assess how expertise becomes governing authority, and identify actions permitted by its mandate and accountability arrangements.", "characteristics": { "substance": "social", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "collective" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: biotechnocracy.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 64 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 technocracy, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "a social arrangement between people", "physicalCharacter": [ "Acts through people, and only through them.", "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. Recognised by name, register entry and the people acting in its name, and those change while it stays the same body." ], "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": [ "biotechnocracy" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 64 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 technocracy from another, and a technocracy 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 technocracy 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 technocracy from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 technocracy 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 technocracy between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 technocracy, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a technocracy 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "people-and-responsibility", "name": "People, roles and responsibility", "description": "Who stands in what relation to a technocracy.", "rationale": "Social things are defined by the relations people hold to them, and those relations change without the thing changing.", "layers": [ { "id": "roles-and-parties", "name": "Roles and parties", "description": "The roles that exist around a technocracy and who fills them.", "findings": [ { "id": "role-assignments", "name": "Role assignments and their validity", "description": "Who holds which role over a technocracy, from when, and on whose authority.", "questions": [ { "id": "role-assignments-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a role over a technocracy, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "role-assignments-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a role over a technocracy, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "role-assignments-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a role over a technocracy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "ownership-and-accountability", "name": "Ownership and accountability", "description": "Who answers for a technocracy and who may decide about it.", "findings": [ { "id": "accountability", "name": "Accountability and decision rights", "description": "Where responsibility for a technocracy sits when something goes wrong.", "questions": [ { "id": "accountability-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes responsibility for a technocracy, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "accountability-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about responsibility for a technocracy, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "accountability-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once responsibility for a technocracy is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "legal-identity", "name": "Legal identity and mandate", "description": "What technocracy is in law and what it exists to do.", "rationale": "Legal identity survives changes of name, address, staff and premises, which is exactly why it must be recorded separately from all of them.", "layers": [ { "id": "registration", "name": "Legal form and registration", "description": "Form, register, identifiers and jurisdiction.", "findings": [ { "id": "registration-record", "name": "Registration and identifiers", "description": "What names this body unambiguously in law.", "questions": [ { "id": "registration-record-q01", "text": "What legal form does technocracy take, in which register, under which identifier?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "registration-record-q02", "text": "What survives a rename, a merger or a move of premises, and what does not?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "mandate", "name": "Mandate and governing instrument", "description": "The purpose it is bound to and the document that binds it.", "findings": [ { "id": "mandate-record", "name": "Mandate and its source", "description": "What it may do, and the instrument that says so.", "questions": [ { "id": "mandate-record-q01", "text": "What is the mandate of technocracy, and which founding or governing instrument grants it?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "mandate-record-q02", "text": "What lies outside the mandate, and what should an agent do when asked for it?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "governance-and-membership", "name": "Governance, membership and decision rights", "description": "Who decides in technocracy and who belongs to it.", "rationale": "Authority inside an organisation is held by roles, not people, and an agent needs to know which role can commit it.", "layers": [ { "id": "decision-rights", "name": "Decision rights", "description": "Bodies, offices and what each may bind.", "findings": [ { "id": "authority-map", "name": "Who may bind the organisation", "description": "The offices that can commit it and their limits.", "questions": [ { "id": "authority-map-q01", "text": "Which bodies or offices of technocracy may take which decisions, and up to what limit?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "authority-map-q02", "text": "What evidence shows that a given person currently holds that office?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] }, { "id": "membership", "name": "Membership and affiliation", "description": "Who counts as part of it and on what terms.", "findings": [ { "id": "membership-rules", "name": "Membership and its evidence", "description": "Classes of member, how membership starts and ends.", "questions": [ { "id": "membership-rules-q01", "text": "What kinds of membership or affiliation does technocracy have, and how does each begin and end?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "membership-rules-q02", "text": "What may a member do in its name, and what may they not?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a technocracy 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 technocracy and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 technocracy is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a technocracy, 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 technocracy, 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 technocracy 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 } } } }