{ "model": { "rank": 5205, "code": "thing-q201424", "model_id": "vr.tr.nuclear-warfare", "name": "nuclear warfare", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to identify and assess nuclear warfare, distinguish actual use from threats and preparations, and support evidence-based humanitarian and risk-reduction decisions.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q201424/", "tier": 2, "score": 69, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "nuclear escalation" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 69, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q201424", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q201424", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T21:53:24Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a08828-5d54-7112-b969-d6a3eb1de166\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: nuclear warfare\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 63.1, "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: 01a08828-5d48-7883-81ff-e5c88891d07d\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: nuclear warfare\nRegistry id: vr.tr.nuclear-warfare\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q201424", "registryId": "vr.tr.nuclear-warfare", "name": "nuclear warfare", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q201424/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.nuclear-warfare", "name": "nuclear warfare", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to identify and assess nuclear warfare, distinguish actual use from threats and preparations, and support evidence-based humanitarian and risk-reduction decisions.", "definition": "Nuclear warfare is armed conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons, whose explosive energy comes from nuclear fission, fusion, or both, against military or civilian targets.", "scope_statement": "This model owns nuclear warfare as an activity involving nuclear-weapon use in armed conflict, including contested classifications of limited use, escalation relationships, consequences, and cessation; threats, doctrines, and preparations are recorded as related conditions without automatically treating them as warfare.", "in_scope": [ "Classification of alleged, confirmed, and hypothetical nuclear-weapon use in armed conflict", "Participants, attribution, decision authority, and uncertainty about authorization", "Relationships among nuclear use, conventional hostilities, deterrence, and escalation", "Immediate and cascading humanitarian, environmental, and societal consequences", "Civilian protection, humanitarian response constraints, cessation, and recurrence prevention" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Nuclear-weapon design, manufacture, acquisition, and employment instructions", "Detailed targeting, strike planning, or optimization of military effects", "Civil nuclear energy operations and reactor accidents considered independently", "Radiological dispersal attacks that do not involve a nuclear explosive weapon", "General warfare, diplomacy, and arms-control institutions beyond their nuclear-conflict relationships" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An instance requires evidence of nuclear-weapon use connected to armed conflict; possession, alerting, exercises, and threats alone do not establish an instance.", "A radiological release alone is insufficient: distinguish a nuclear explosive weapon from a reactor accident, a conventional attack on nuclear infrastructure, or a radiological dispersal device.", "A nuclear detonation must be situated in context: a weapons test is not automatically an act of nuclear warfare.", "Record whether the classification includes a single unilateral use or requires an exchange; do not silently equate nuclear warfare with mutual strategic attack.", "Separate an observed conflict episode from a hypothetical scenario, doctrinal concept, or simulation." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Referent type", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "observed episode | alleged episode | hypothetical scenario | doctrinal concept", "why_it_matters": "Prevents scenario assumptions and doctrinal language from being reported as observed events." }, { "name": "Nuclear-use evidence status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unverified allegation | supported assessment | independently corroborated | disputed | refuted", "why_it_matters": "Makes classification depend on traceable evidence and exposes unresolved disagreement." }, { "name": "Definition applied", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Attributed definition linked to its author, date, inclusion criteria, and exclusions", "why_it_matters": "Allows classifications to differ transparently when sources use different boundaries." }, { "name": "Episode configuration", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "single use | repeated unilateral use | reciprocal use | disputed | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Describes the observed pattern without assuming reciprocal attack or inevitable expansion." }, { "name": "Conflict relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to associated armed conflict, preceding hostilities, and subsequent episodes", "why_it_matters": "Establishes the context needed to distinguish wartime use from other nuclear events." }, { "name": "Attribution and authorization assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Separately attributed assessments of responsible actor and authorization, each with evidence and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Prevents identification of an apparent user from being treated as proof of who ordered the event." }, { "name": "Episode timing", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Timestamp or interval with time zone, precision, and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Supports reconstruction of sequences without imposing false temporal precision." }, { "name": "Humanitarian impact estimate", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "People killed, injured, displaced, or deprived of essential services, each with time horizon, method, and uncertainty interval", "why_it_matters": "Supports response assessment while preventing incompatible estimates from being combined." }, { "name": "Consequence assessment basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "direct observation | retrospective reconstruction | model projection | mixed | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Separates measured consequences from projections dependent on scenario assumptions." }, { "name": "Cessation status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "use ongoing | reported pause | declared cessation | corroborated cessation within stated coverage | recurrence | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes claims of termination from evidence that further use has stopped." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify an event under explicit definitions and document reasons for inclusion, exclusion, or uncertainty.", "Compare attributed accounts of nuclear use, responsibility, and authorization without collapsing disagreement.", "Construct a sourced chronology separating observed actions, public statements, and inferred escalation.", "Compare humanitarian consequence assessments using compatible populations, time horizons, and assumptions.", "Identify gaps in civilian protection and humanitarian response information for qualified responders.", "Track cessation claims, supporting evidence, and unresolved risks of renewed nuclear use." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "nuclear-warfare-boundaries", "name": "Nuclear warfare boundaries", "description": "Establishes which sense of nuclear warfare is being modeled and what evidence would make an event an instance.", "rationale": "The registry has no definition, and different treatments may include different forms and scales of nuclear use.", "layers": [ { "id": "definitions-and-instances", "name": "Definitions and instances", "description": "Records attributed definitions and their application to actual or hypothetical episodes.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-inclusion-rule", "name": "Explicit inclusion rule", "description": "Record whether a definition includes single, unilateral, demonstrative, or reciprocal wartime use, together with the source responsible for that definition.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the cited source require for an event to count as nuclear warfare?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-inclusion-rule-q01" }, { "text": "Would a single wartime nuclear detonation qualify under this definition, and which borderline cases remain disputed?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "explicit-inclusion-rule-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "adjacent-nuclear-events", "name": "Adjacent nuclear events", "description": "Separates nuclear warfare from tests, threats, accidents, and non-explosive radiological events.", "findings": [ { "id": "event-mechanism-and-context", "name": "Event mechanism and context", "description": "Assess evidence for nuclear-weapon use and its connection to hostilities independently of reports that merely describe radiation or an explosion.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence supports identifying this as nuclear-weapon use rather than another source of explosion or radioactive release?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "event-mechanism-and-context-q01" }, { "text": "What connects the event to armed conflict rather than testing, an accident, or an exercise?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "event-mechanism-and-context-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "actors-authority-and-attribution", "name": "Actors, authority, and attribution", "description": "Represents who is alleged to have used nuclear weapons and what is known about decision responsibility.", "rationale": "Actor attribution, authorization, and stated intent are separate claims with different evidentiary requirements.", "layers": [ { "id": "responsible-actors", "name": "Responsible actors", "description": "Tracks claims about participants and responsibility for particular uses.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-evidence", "name": "Attribution evidence", "description": "Maintain competing attribution assessments, their sources, and the distinction between public claims and independently supported conclusions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who attributes the nuclear use to which actor, and what evidence does each assessment cite?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Which claims share an underlying source, and which have independent corroboration?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "authorization-and-intent", "name": "Authorization and intent", "description": "Separates responsibility for execution from evidence about authorization and purpose.", "findings": [ { "id": "decision-responsibility", "name": "Decision responsibility", "description": "Record authorization as established, alleged, disputed, or unknown, and distinguish stated purposes from analysts' interpretations.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence supports a conclusion about whether the use was authorized, unauthorized, or accidental?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "decision-responsibility-q01" }, { "text": "Which purposes were stated by participants, and which were inferred by observers?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "decision-responsibility-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conflict-sequence-and-escalation", "name": "Conflict sequence and escalation", "description": "Locates nuclear use within a conflict and records changes in its extent without prescribing military employment.", "rationale": "Nuclear warfare must be understood as a sequence whose interpretation can change as evidence accumulates.", "layers": [ { "id": "use-chronology", "name": "Use chronology", "description": "Reconstructs the sequence of nuclear use and related hostilities at an appropriate historical or analytical level.", "findings": [ { "id": "episode-sequence", "name": "Episode sequence", "description": "Record individual use events, temporal uncertainty, and the rationale for grouping them into an episode or exchange.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which nuclear-use events are supported by evidence, and what is the uncertainty in their order and timing?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "episode-sequence-q01" }, { "text": "What rule groups these events into one episode rather than separate episodes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "episode-sequence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "escalation-interpretations", "name": "Escalation interpretations", "description": "Examines attributed claims about expansion, restraint, signaling, and interaction with conventional hostilities.", "findings": [ { "id": "observed-change-versus-inferred-signal", "name": "Observed change versus inferred signal", "description": "Separate observable changes in participation, geographic extent, or recurrence from interpretations of intended signals and projected next steps.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observable changes support describing the episode as expanding, stabilizing, or contracting?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "observed-change-versus-inferred-signal-q01" }, { "text": "Whose interpretation links a threat, doctrine, or conventional event to subsequent nuclear use, and what alternatives remain plausible?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "observed-change-versus-inferred-signal-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "humanitarian-and-cascading-consequences", "name": "Humanitarian and cascading consequences", "description": "Organizes assessments of direct harm and wider disruption with explicit evidentiary and modeling limits.", "rationale": "Consequence assessments can cover different mechanisms, populations, and time horizons and cannot be treated as interchangeable.", "layers": [ { "id": "direct-humanitarian-harm", "name": "Direct humanitarian harm", "description": "Records deaths, injuries, displacement, exposure, and disruption of essential civilian services.", "findings": [ { "id": "impact-estimate-comparability", "name": "Impact estimate comparability", "description": "Attach population coverage, assessment date, causal categories, uncertainty, and observation method to each impact estimate.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which harms are observed or estimated, over what population and period, and with what uncertainty?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "impact-estimate-comparability-q01" }, { "text": "How does the assessment handle overlapping causes of harm and avoid counting the same people more than once?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "impact-estimate-comparability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "longer-term-and-transboundary-effects", "name": "Longer-term and transboundary effects", "description": "Records assessments of persistent contamination, health burdens, food-system disruption, infrastructure dependencies, and possible climate effects.", "findings": [ { "id": "cascade-evidence-and-assumptions", "name": "Cascade evidence and assumptions", "description": "Represent each proposed consequence pathway with its supporting evidence, geographical reach, time horizon, and dependencies on scenario assumptions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which longer-term or transboundary consequences are observed, and which are projections?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "cascade-evidence-and-assumptions-q01" }, { "text": "Which assumptions most affect estimates of climate, food-system, health, and infrastructure consequences?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "cascade-evidence-and-assumptions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "civilian-protection-and-cessation", "name": "Civilian protection and cessation", "description": "Supports assessment of protective action, humanitarian access, and evidence that nuclear use has ended.", "rationale": "An agent needs to connect uncertain conflict information to responsible assistance and distinguish a pause from established cessation.", "layers": [ { "id": "humanitarian-response-conditions", "name": "Humanitarian response conditions", "description": "Records needs, response capacity, access constraints, and current guidance issued by competent authorities.", "findings": [ { "id": "needs-capacity-and-guidance", "name": "Needs, capacity, and guidance", "description": "Connect affected populations and service failures to verified response information, recording its jurisdiction, currency, and limitations.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence identifies unmet needs and constraints on medical care, shelter, water, communications, and humanitarian access?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "needs-capacity-and-guidance-q01" }, { "text": "Which competent authorities provide applicable protective guidance, and what must an agent verify before relaying it?", "kind": "action", "id": "needs-capacity-and-guidance-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "cessation-and-recurrence", "name": "Cessation and recurrence", "description": "Tracks declarations, observed pauses, monitoring coverage, and conditions relevant to renewed nuclear use.", "findings": [ { "id": "cessation-evidence", "name": "Cessation evidence", "description": "Record who claims nuclear use has ceased, what supports that claim, and the temporal and observational limits of verification.", "questions": [ { "text": "What distinguishes a declared cessation, an observed pause, and cessation corroborated within a stated monitoring period?", "kind": "definition", "id": "cessation-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What new evidence should trigger reassessment of cessation or referral to qualified crisis-response authorities?", "kind": "action", "id": "cessation-evidence-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 covers nuclear warfare as an activity, rather than nuclear weapons technology or deterrence alone; it is recalled knowledge, not source-verified research.", "Strategic, tactical, theater and limited are overlapping doctrinal categories, not universally agreed yield classes.", "Researchers should verify current treaty participation and national doctrines; the 1996 ICJ opinion requires careful reading and does not supply an unqualified answer for every circumstance." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of nuclear warfare 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": [ "Strategic nuclear warfare", "Tactical or theater nuclear warfare", "Limited nuclear warfare", "Large-scale nuclear warfare" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of nuclear warfare this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "UN Charter: governs states' resort to force, including force involving nuclear weapons.", "International humanitarian law: distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack apply to nuclear warfare; relevant sources include the Geneva Conventions framework and customary international law.", "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: establishes non-proliferation, peaceful-use and disarmament obligations for its parties.", "Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: prohibits its parties from activities including using or threatening to use nuclear weapons.", "International Court of Justice, 1996 advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: addresses the applicable international legal framework." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of nuclear warfare 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": [ "The United States used nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.", "Military doctrine and exercises examine nuclear employment, command authority and escalation.", "Deterrence policy uses the prospect of nuclear warfare to influence adversaries' decisions.", "Civil defense and humanitarian planning assess consequences of nuclear attacks." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of nuclear warfare this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Explosive yield", "typical_range": "Weapon-dependent; commonly expressed on kiloton or megaton scales, with no defining range for nuclear warfare.", "unit": "TNT equivalent" }, { "quantity": "Number of nuclear detonations in a conflict or scenario", "typical_range": "One or more; no universally accepted threshold separates limited from large-scale nuclear warfare.", "unit": "detonations" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of nuclear warfare 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": [ "Blast, thermal radiation and fires cause mass casualties and destroy infrastructure.", "Prompt ionizing radiation and radioactive fallout cause acute injury, long-term health effects and contamination.", "False warning, miscalculation or unauthorized action can initiate or escalate nuclear use.", "Damage to communications, electricity, healthcare and supply systems can compound direct destruction.", "Soot from extensive fires may disrupt climate and food production; the magnitude depends on the scenario and modeling assumptions." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of nuclear warfare this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "States differ in declared first-use policies, no-first-use commitments and the role assigned to nuclear weapons.", "Nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties establish geographically specific obligations for their parties.", "Alliance arrangements and regional security conditions shape extended deterrence and nuclear planning." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of nuclear warfare 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": "Nuclear weapons", "difference": "The weapons are physical devices; nuclear warfare is conflict involving their use." }, { "name": "Nuclear deterrence", "difference": "Deterrence seeks to influence behavior through the prospect of nuclear use and can operate without nuclear warfare occurring." }, { "name": "Conventional warfare", "difference": "Conventional warfare uses non-nuclear weapons; a conflict can include both conventional and nuclear operations." }, { "name": "Radiological warfare", "difference": "Radiological warfare uses radioactive material for harmful exposure or contamination without requiring a nuclear explosive reaction." }, { "name": "Nuclear testing", "difference": "Testing evaluates or demonstrates nuclear devices; a test explosion is not itself use against an adversary in armed conflict." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of nuclear warfare this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which authoritative reference works and research traditions define nuclear warfare, and how do their boundaries differ for single use, demonstration, and non-state use?", "Does an existing Vercy world model already own this concept, requiring a registry link rather than a separate publication?", "Which evidence standards should govern classification of an alleged nuclear-use event when independent access is limited and public accounts conflict?", "How should terms such as limited, tactical, and strategic be attributed and compared when sources apply different criteria?", "Which consequence estimates and cessation indicators are sufficiently supported for agent decisions, and where must uncertainty remain explicit?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 28 } }, "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 nuclear warfare, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to identify and assess nuclear warfare, distinguish actual use from threats and preparations, and support evidence-based humanitarian and risk-reduction decisions.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: nuclear escalation.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 69 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 nuclear warfare, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "nuclear escalation" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 69 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 nuclear warfare from another, and a nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare?", "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 nuclear warfare?", "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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 nuclear warfare is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare, 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 nuclear warfare 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 } } } }