{ "model": { "rank": 5359, "code": "thing-q201610", "model_id": "vr.tr.status-quo", "name": "status quo", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify the existing arrangement in a specified context, assess how it persists and whom it affects, and compare proposed actions against an explicit baseline.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.STA", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q201610/", "tier": 2, "score": 68, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 68, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q201610", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q201610", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T22:11:55Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 17.5, "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: 01a08839-7431-7d21-b6c7-519fc36799a2\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: status quo\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.STA\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001 regi", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 54.4, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a08839-7434-7091-8050-05d64d66dd6f\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: status quo\nRegistry id: vr.tr.status-quo\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.STA\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCo" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q201610", "registryId": "vr.tr.status-quo", "name": "status quo", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.STA" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q201610/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.status-quo", "name": "status quo", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify the existing arrangement in a specified context, assess how it persists and whom it affects, and compare proposed actions against an explicit baseline.", "definition": "The status quo is the existing state of affairs in a specified context at a specified reference time, used as a baseline for comparing proposed or possible changes.", "scope_statement": "This model owns status quo as a context-bound existing state of affairs used as a reference for continuation or change, including disputes over what is currently operative; it does not cover the band or other proper names.", "in_scope": [ "The arrangements, practices and conditions treated as currently operative within a stated boundary", "The reference time, observation period and criteria used to identify the existing arrangement", "Differences between formal arrangements, actual practice and stakeholder descriptions", "Mechanisms and ongoing activities that sustain the arrangement", "Distribution of benefits, burdens and influence under the existing arrangement", "The baseline against which continuation, reform or replacement is evaluated" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Status quo bias as a psychological tendency to prefer existing options", "Equilibrium as a technical condition defined by a particular scientific or economic model", "Historical reconstruction of a previous arrangement, including status quo ante", "Complete models of the institutions, policies or systems whose arrangements constitute the status quo", "Detailed design and implementation of a proposed replacement", "Normative theories that independently determine whether an arrangement is legitimate or desirable" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An instance must identify what exists, where and when; a preferred or imagined arrangement alone is not a status quo.", "An arrangement can remain the status quo while its quantities fluctuate or participants change, provided its specified constitutive features persist.", "Existing operation does not establish equilibrium, stability, legitimacy or stakeholder consent; each requires separate evidence.", "A default option counts as preserving the status quo only when its consequences maintain the relevant existing arrangement.", "A claim about status quo bias concerns a preference or decision process, whereas this model identifies the arrangement being retained or challenged." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Reference context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "System, jurisdiction, population and activity to which the baseline applies", "why_it_matters": "The same arrangement may be current in one context and absent in another." }, { "name": "Temporal anchor", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Reference timestamp and observation interval, with timezone or calendar where relevant", "why_it_matters": "A status quo claim becomes ambiguous or stale without a specified time." }, { "name": "Constitutive features", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicit rules, practices, allocations or relationships whose continuation defines this baseline", "why_it_matters": "These features distinguish a change within the arrangement from a change of arrangement." }, { "name": "Formal and practical alignment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Aligned, partly divergent, substantially divergent, disputed or unassessed", "why_it_matters": "Written rules may describe a different baseline from the one people experience." }, { "name": "Persistence requirements", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Dependencies on actors, resources, enforcement, recurring decisions and external conditions", "why_it_matters": "Continuation may require substantial action and cannot automatically be equated with doing nothing." }, { "name": "Stakeholder consequences", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Affected groups linked to evidenced benefits, burdens, access and decision authority", "why_it_matters": "An aggregate description can conceal sharply different experiences of the existing arrangement." }, { "name": "Baseline agreement", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Agreed, partly contested, fundamentally contested or unassessed, with positions attributed", "why_it_matters": "Comparisons are unreliable when participants use different meanings of the current state." } ], "affordances": [ "Establish a dated baseline from observed practice and applicable formal arrangements.", "Compare stakeholder accounts and locate disagreements about what currently operates.", "Identify the actions and dependencies required to preserve the arrangement.", "Assess which groups benefit, bear costs or can authorize changes.", "Compare continuation and change scenarios using explicit assumptions about future conditions.", "Detect when observed changes require updating or replacing the baseline." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "baseline-identification", "name": "Baseline identification", "description": "Establishes which existing arrangement is meant by status quo in this use.", "rationale": "Status quo has no determinate referent without a context, temporal anchor and account of what counts as existing.", "layers": [ { "id": "referent-and-time", "name": "Referent and time", "description": "Locates the arrangement and the period over which it is described as current.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-current-arrangement", "name": "Bounded current arrangement", "description": "Record the system, affected population, relevant activities and temporal anchor of the baseline claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Whose affairs, in which system or jurisdiction, does this status quo describe?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-current-arrangement-q01" }, { "text": "At what date and over what observation interval is this arrangement considered current?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "bounded-current-arrangement-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "formal-and-operative-baselines", "name": "Formal and operative baselines", "description": "Distinguishes prescribed arrangements from arrangements actually enacted.", "findings": [ { "id": "rules-practice-and-claims", "name": "Rules, practice and claims", "description": "Record whether the baseline refers to formal rules, recurring practice or an attributed stakeholder account, retaining discrepancies.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does status quo here mean the rules in force, what usually happens, or a particular actor's description?", "kind": "definition", "id": "rules-practice-and-claims-q01" }, { "text": "Which documents and observations support that account, and where do they conflict?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "rules-practice-and-claims-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "continuity-and-maintenance", "name": "Continuity and maintenance", "description": "Identifies what must persist for the arrangement to remain the same and what sustains that persistence.", "rationale": "An existing arrangement can involve continuous activity and variation; neither immobility nor effortless survival should be assumed.", "layers": [ { "id": "identity-through-variation", "name": "Identity through variation", "description": "Specifies which changes are compatible with continuity of the baseline.", "findings": [ { "id": "constitutive-continuity", "name": "Constitutive continuity", "description": "Separate features that define the arrangement from quantities or participants that can vary without replacing it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rules, distributions or relationships must persist for this to count as the same status quo?", "kind": "definition", "id": "constitutive-continuity-q01" }, { "text": "Which observed changes would constitute replacement or reform rather than ordinary variation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "constitutive-continuity-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reproduction-and-dependencies", "name": "Reproduction and dependencies", "description": "Examines the activities and conditions through which the arrangement continues.", "findings": [ { "id": "maintenance-versus-inaction", "name": "Maintenance versus inaction", "description": "Record ongoing decisions, resource commitments and dependencies that preserve the baseline, distinguishing maintenance from nonintervention.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which recurring actions, expenditures or enforcement practices are necessary to keep this arrangement operating?", "kind": "action", "id": "maintenance-versus-inaction-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence indicates whether the arrangement would persist, drift or lapse if those activities stopped?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "maintenance-versus-inaction-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "stakeholder-experience-and-contestation", "name": "Stakeholder experience and contestation", "description": "Captures differences in experienced consequences and in how actors describe the existing arrangement.", "rationale": "Calling an arrangement the status quo can obscure unequal effects or imply agreement that has not been established.", "layers": [ { "id": "distribution-and-authority", "name": "Distribution and authority", "description": "Relates the current arrangement to affected groups and their ability to preserve or change it.", "findings": [ { "id": "benefits-burdens-and-control", "name": "Benefits, burdens and control", "description": "Record evidenced consequences by group and distinguish exposure to consequences from authority over the arrangement.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which groups receive benefits or bear burdens under the current arrangement, and how are those effects assessed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "benefits-burdens-and-control-q01" }, { "text": "Which actors can maintain, modify or block changes to the arrangement, and what establishes that authority?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "benefits-burdens-and-control-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "contested-descriptions", "name": "Contested descriptions", "description": "Keeps disagreement over current conditions distinct from disagreement over their desirability.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-baseline-disputes", "name": "Attributed baseline disputes", "description": "Attribute competing accounts and identify whether they differ in evidence, boundary, reference time or evaluation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who disputes this description of the status quo, and what alternative account do they offer?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-baseline-disputes-q01" }, { "text": "Is the disagreement about what exists, which context counts, or whether the arrangement ought to continue?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attributed-baseline-disputes-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "continuation-and-change-assessment", "name": "Continuation and change assessment", "description": "Uses the identified baseline to assess options and recognize when the baseline itself needs revision.", "rationale": "A comparison against status quo must distinguish present observations from assumptions about what continuation will produce.", "layers": [ { "id": "continuation-counterfactual", "name": "Continuation counterfactual", "description": "Defines a future continuation scenario separately from the observed present.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-continuation-assumptions", "name": "Explicit continuation assumptions", "description": "Record the time horizon, maintenance commitments and external assumptions used when status quo serves as a comparison option.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the continuation option mean retaining current rules, maintaining current outcomes, or taking no new action?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-continuation-assumptions-q01" }, { "text": "Over what horizon and under which external conditions are its consequences being compared with proposed changes?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "explicit-continuation-assumptions-q02" }, { "text": "Which interventions would be required to deliver the stated continuation scenario?", "kind": "action", "id": "explicit-continuation-assumptions-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "baseline-revision", "name": "Baseline revision", "description": "Determines when developments make the recorded status quo obsolete or incomplete.", "findings": [ { "id": "change-recognition-and-reanchoring", "name": "Change recognition and reanchoring", "description": "Specify evidence that warrants revising the baseline while retaining the prior dated account for comparison.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence would show that the constitutive arrangement has changed rather than temporarily deviated?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "change-recognition-and-reanchoring-q01" }, { "text": "When such evidence appears, which baseline claims should be revised and from what effective date?", "kind": "action", "id": "change-recognition-and-reanchoring-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 general abstract concept; no specialised sense was recorded.", "The listed kinds are contextual uses, not a standardised taxonomy.", "Any operationalisation must specify the reference time, relevant features and whether continuation includes expected ongoing change." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of status quo 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": [ "Political status quo", "Institutional status quo", "Economic status quo", "Social status quo", "Territorial status quo" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of status quo 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": [ "Policy analysis compares proposed interventions with a baseline of continuing existing arrangements.", "Negotiations distinguish preservation of existing arrangements from concessions or changes.", "Political debate identifies institutions, practices or power relations that participants seek to preserve or alter.", "Decision research uses an existing arrangement or current choice to investigate status quo bias.", "Strategic planning examines what may happen if current practices continue." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of status quo 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": [ "Leaving the reference time or scope unspecified makes the baseline ambiguous.", "Treating continuation of current arrangements as an unchanging future overlooks ongoing trends.", "Describing existing arrangements as neutral can conceal their unequal costs and benefits.", "Confusing preference for the status quo with status quo bias overlooks potentially legitimate costs and risks of change.", "Different participants may select different features of the existing situation and therefore disagree about what preserving it entails." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of status quo 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": "status quo ante", "difference": "Refers to an earlier state of affairs, usually before a specified event, rather than the state at the current reference time." }, { "name": "status quo bias", "difference": "Is a tendency to favour an existing arrangement; the status quo is the arrangement itself." }, { "name": "equilibrium", "difference": "Requires some specified balance or absence of forces producing change; a status quo may be unstable or changing." }, { "name": "default option", "difference": "Is the outcome selected when no active choice is made; it need not preserve the existing state." }, { "name": "baseline", "difference": "Is any designated comparison condition; the status quo is one possible baseline." }, { "name": "conservatism", "difference": "Is a family of political or social orientations; status quo describes a condition without itself prescribing its preservation." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of status quo this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which disciplinary uses distinguish status quo as observed conditions, an institutional arrangement or a decision baseline, and which distinctions need explicit treatment?", "What evidence and observation period should establish an operative status quo when formal rules and everyday practice diverge?", "How should continuity thresholds be chosen in rapidly changing systems without imposing arbitrary stability requirements?", "How should competing stakeholder baselines be represented when no shared boundary or reference time can be established?", "When a decision presents status quo as an option, what conventions determine whether it means active maintenance, unchanged policy or nonintervention?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 13, "questions": 22 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a status quo, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify the existing arrangement in a specified context, assess how it persists and whom it affects, and compare proposed actions against an explicit baseline.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 68 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 status quo, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "an abstraction with no physical instance", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 68 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one status quo from another, and a status quo 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 status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo 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 status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo 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 status quo between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a status quo 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 status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo 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 status quo 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 status quo 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 status quo 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 status quo?", "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 status quo?", "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 status quo 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 status quo and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo 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 status quo is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a status quo, 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 status quo, 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 status quo is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 12, "questions": 32 } } } }