{ "model": { "rank": 6089, "code": "thing-q2166722", "model_id": "vr.tr.betrayal", "name": "betrayal", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess an alleged betrayal by recording the trust at stake, the act that breached it, competing interpretations, consequences and justified responses.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q2166722/", "tier": 2, "score": 62, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "defection", "betrayal of secrets", "fake defection" ], "aliasCount": 3, "merged": 4, "knownIn": 62, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q2166722", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2166722", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T11:28:27Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00202062, "turns": 1, "seconds": 16.6, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 79.7, "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: 01a07b9f-3aea-7142-98af-3ad88ac6feb2\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: betrayal\nRegistry id: vr.tr.betrayal\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA Vercy" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q2166722", "registryId": "vr.tr.betrayal", "name": "betrayal", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q2166722/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.betrayal", "name": "betrayal", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess an alleged betrayal by recording the trust at stake, the act that breached it, competing interpretations, consequences and justified responses.", "definition": "Betrayal is a social and moral event in which a trusted party violates a duty, confidence, or expected loyalty, producing harm that is defined by the prior relationship rather than by the act alone.", "scope_statement": "This model owns an episode or connected pattern in which an actor allegedly violates an entrusted responsibility or a reasonably grounded expectation of loyalty, including whether the betrayal attribution is supported, disputed or unresolved.", "in_scope": [ "The parties, entrusted interests and relationship that made betrayal possible", "The basis, limits and legitimacy of the expectation allegedly violated", "Actions, omissions or disclosures alleged to constitute betrayal", "The actor's knowledge, freedom of choice and stated or inferred reasons", "Discovery, consequences and changes in willingness to rely on the actor", "Protection, accountability and possible repair specific to the breach" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Trust relationships apart from a particular alleged breach", "Deception that does not violate an entrusted responsibility or grounded loyalty expectation", "Disagreement, rejection or separation without an established obligation to act otherwise", "General models of trauma, grief or psychological diagnosis", "Legal adjudication of offences, contractual liability or sanctions", "General processes of reconciliation and relationship maintenance" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify an entrusted interest or grounded loyalty expectation that existed before the conduct; disappointment alone does not establish betrayal.", "Show how the conduct violated that specific expectation rather than merely producing an unwanted outcome.", "Establish how the actor occupied a position of trust or loyalty; harm by an unrelated adversary is not sufficient.", "Assess knowledge and available choices separately from the breach itself to distinguish deliberate betrayal from mistake, incapacity or coercion.", "Test whether the demanded loyalty was legitimate and still applicable; refusal of an abusive demand or disclosure of wrongdoing must not automatically be classified as betrayal." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Betrayal attribution", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "alleged | supported | disputed | unresolved | not supported, with assessor and reasons", "why_it_matters": "Separates an accusation or felt experience from an assessed conclusion." }, { "name": "Entrustment configuration", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Entrusting party, entrusted actor, protected interest and affected third parties", "why_it_matters": "Identifies whose reliance the conduct allegedly violated and whose interests may differ." }, { "name": "Expectation basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "explicit promise | accepted role | shared practice | implied commitment | unilateral expectation | disputed basis; multiple values permitted", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes grounded reliance from an expectation the actor never accepted or could not reasonably recognise." }, { "name": "Expectation legitimacy", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "supported | contested | unsupported | unassessed, with grounds and applicable limits", "why_it_matters": "Prevents loyalty claims from automatically authorising control, concealment or retaliation." }, { "name": "Breach mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "misuse of confidence | abandonment of responsibility | covert conflicting allegiance | exploitation of reliance | other specified mechanism", "why_it_matters": "Connects the conduct to the particular way trust was violated." }, { "name": "Awareness of the expectation", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "acknowledged | evidenced | disputed | absent on available evidence | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Supports assessment of responsibility without treating an inferred mental state as fact." }, { "name": "Freedom to act otherwise", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "substantial | constrained | apparently absent | disputed | unknown, with alternatives and constraints", "why_it_matters": "Makes coercion, dependency and competing duties visible." }, { "name": "Entrustment-enabled access", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Access, authority, information or vulnerability available because of the trust relationship and its use in the conduct", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether reliance itself enabled or amplified the breach." }, { "name": "Exposure interval", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Dated or bounded interval from first relevant breach to discovery or containment; unknown endpoints allowed", "why_it_matters": "Helps establish which reliance decisions occurred while the affected party lacked relevant knowledge." }, { "name": "Repair status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "not sought | proposed | underway | partly achieved | declined | failed | unresolved, separately by affected party", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes attempted repair from restored trust or consent to continued contact." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether reported conduct meets the betrayal criteria while preserving competing accounts and uncertainty.", "Trace the breached expectation to its basis, acceptance, limits and affected interests.", "Identify continuing exposure through entrusted access and propose proportionate protective changes within the agent's authority.", "Compare explanations involving deliberate disloyalty, mistake, coercion or competing obligations.", "Record accountability and repair proposals without presuming forgiveness or renewed access.", "Revise the attribution and response when new evidence changes the understanding of the trust or conduct." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "entrusted-loyalty", "name": "Entrusted loyalty", "description": "The relationship and expectation that make the alleged act a betrayal rather than ordinary harm.", "rationale": "Betrayal cannot be assessed without identifying what was entrusted and why loyalty was expected.", "layers": [ { "id": "parties-and-entrustment", "name": "Parties and entrustment", "description": "Who relied on whom, for what, and with what resulting vulnerability.", "findings": [ { "id": "entrusted-interest", "name": "Entrusted interest", "description": "Record the interest placed in the actor's care and any access or discretion created by that reliance.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who entrusted what interest to the actor, and what conduct was expected in return?", "kind": "definition", "id": "entrusted-interest-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows that the actor accepted or could reasonably recognise this entrustment?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "entrusted-interest-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "expectation-and-limits", "name": "Expectation and limits", "description": "The grounds and boundaries of the loyalty claimed.", "findings": [ { "id": "applicable-loyalty", "name": "Applicable loyalty", "description": "Record the promise, role or shared understanding and examine whether it applied legitimately at the time.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which promise, accepted role or shared practice grounds the expectation, and whose account establishes it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "applicable-loyalty-q01" }, { "text": "Had the expectation expired, been withdrawn or conflicted with safety, consent or another obligation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "applicable-loyalty-q02" }, { "text": "Does the accusation depend on an entitlement to obedience, secrecy or continued attachment that remains disputed?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "applicable-loyalty-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "breach-and-concealment", "name": "Breach and concealment", "description": "The conduct alleged to violate trust and the role of secrecy or misleading appearances.", "rationale": "The model must connect observable conduct to a specific trust violation without assuming all betrayal involves deception.", "layers": [ { "id": "conduct-against-commitment", "name": "Conduct against commitment", "description": "The act or omission and its relationship to the entrusted responsibility.", "findings": [ { "id": "specific-breach", "name": "Specific breach", "description": "Record what happened, the expectation it allegedly violated and any use of trust-derived access.", "questions": [ { "text": "What action or omission allegedly breached which specific commitment?", "kind": "definition", "id": "specific-breach-q01" }, { "text": "Which observations support the conduct account, and which details remain allegations?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "specific-breach-q02" }, { "text": "How did entrusted access or reliance enable the conduct, if at all?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "specific-breach-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "secrecy-and-discovery", "name": "Secrecy and discovery", "description": "What the affected party knew while continuing to rely on the actor.", "findings": [ { "id": "maintained-appearance-of-loyalty", "name": "Maintained appearance of loyalty", "description": "Record concealment, assurances and discovery separately from the underlying breach.", "questions": [ { "text": "Did the actor conceal the conduct or provide assurances that sustained reliance, and what supports that account?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "maintained-appearance-of-loyalty-q01" }, { "text": "When did the conduct occur, when was it discovered, and which reliance decisions fell between those points?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "maintained-appearance-of-loyalty-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "agency-and-contested-attribution", "name": "Agency and contested attribution", "description": "The actor's awareness and choices, together with alternative interpretations of the episode.", "rationale": "A breach, a feeling of betrayal and a justified attribution of deliberate betrayal are distinct assessments.", "layers": [ { "id": "knowledge-and-choice", "name": "Knowledge and choice", "description": "What the actor understood and what alternatives were available.", "findings": [ { "id": "responsibility-for-breach", "name": "Responsibility for breach", "description": "Record evidence of awareness, intention and constraints without inferring motive solely from harm.", "questions": [ { "text": "What supports the actor's awareness that the conduct would violate the relevant trust?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "responsibility-for-breach-q01" }, { "text": "What feasible alternatives existed, and how did coercion, incapacity or dependency constrain them?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "responsibility-for-breach-q02" }, { "text": "Which reasons are stated by the actor, and which motives are inferred by others?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "responsibility-for-breach-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "competing-accounts", "name": "Competing accounts", "description": "Differences between the parties' descriptions of loyalty, breach and justification.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-under-dispute", "name": "Attribution under dispute", "description": "Record who calls the episode betrayal and assess explanations involving error, legitimate exit or competing duties.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who characterises the conduct as betrayal, who contests that characterisation, and on what grounds?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-under-dispute-q01" }, { "text": "Could the conduct be better explained as error, refusal of an illegitimate demand, legitimate departure or fulfilment of another duty?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-under-dispute-q02" }, { "text": "What additional evidence could materially change the attribution?", "kind": "action", "id": "attribution-under-dispute-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequences-for-reliance", "name": "Consequences for reliance", "description": "The effects of the episode on entrusted interests and future dependence.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish the occurrence of a breach from its consequences and identify any continuing exposure.", "layers": [ { "id": "breach-related-harm", "name": "Breach-related harm", "description": "Consequences connected to the conduct, concealment or discovery.", "findings": [ { "id": "harm-and-causal-account", "name": "Harm and causal account", "description": "Record reported and observed losses, including effects on confidence in the relationship, with causal uncertainty.", "questions": [ { "text": "What harm is reported or observed, and which effects followed the conduct, concealment or discovery?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "harm-and-causal-account-q01" }, { "text": "Which consequences can be linked to the alleged breach, and which may have other causes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "harm-and-causal-account-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "remaining-trust-exposure", "name": "Remaining trust exposure", "description": "Reliance and access that persist after the alleged breach becomes known.", "findings": [ { "id": "continued-vulnerability", "name": "Continued vulnerability", "description": "Record whether the same entrusted access remains usable and whether affected parties can reduce dependence.", "questions": [ { "text": "What information, authority or dependence still leaves the affected party exposed to a similar breach?", "kind": "definition", "id": "continued-vulnerability-q01" }, { "text": "Which proportionate access changes or alternative arrangements are available, and who may authorise them?", "kind": "action", "id": "continued-vulnerability-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "accountability-and-repair", "name": "Accountability and repair", "description": "Responses to the alleged breach and the conditions for any renewed reliance.", "rationale": "Recognition of betrayal must support bounded action without treating punishment, forgiveness or reconciliation as automatic outcomes.", "layers": [ { "id": "acknowledgment-and-redress", "name": "Acknowledgment and redress", "description": "What responsibility is accepted and what concrete remedy is possible.", "findings": [ { "id": "breach-specific-accountability", "name": "Breach-specific accountability", "description": "Record acknowledgment, disputed responsibility and proposed remedies tied to the entrusted interest.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the actor acknowledge the conduct, the breached expectation and its consequences, or only some of these?", "kind": "definition", "id": "breach-specific-accountability-q01" }, { "text": "What restitution, correction or cessation could address this breach, and who has authority to undertake it?", "kind": "action", "id": "breach-specific-accountability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "conditions-for-renewed-reliance", "name": "Conditions for renewed reliance", "description": "Whether affected parties want future trust and what would make it assessable.", "findings": [ { "id": "repair-without-presumed-reconciliation", "name": "Repair without presumed reconciliation", "description": "Record each party's desired relationship outcome and observable conditions for any renewed entrustment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does each affected party seek renewed reliance, limited contact or separation?", "kind": "action", "id": "repair-without-presumed-reconciliation-q01" }, { "text": "What observable conduct over what period would support reassessment of the specific trust that was breached?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "repair-without-presumed-reconciliation-q02" }, { "text": "Which remedies remain possible even if forgiveness, reconciliation or renewed access is declined?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "repair-without-presumed-reconciliation-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "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": [ "interpersonal betrayal", "institutional betrayal", "political betrayal", "self-betrayal", "military/treasonous betrayal", "commercial/fiduciary betrayal", "intimate-partner betrayal", "whistleblowing-as-perceived-betrayal" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of betrayal this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Should unknowing or negligent breaches qualify as betrayal, or should awareness be required for the model's supported classification?", "How should implicit loyalty expectations be assessed when communities or parties disagree about their basis and legitimacy?", "When does an institution's conduct constitute betrayal by the institution, and how should that attribution relate to individual responsibility?", "How should the model represent justified breaches of confidence, such as disclosures made to prevent harm, when affected parties still experience them as betrayal?", "What evidence and episode boundaries distinguish a repeated pattern of betrayal from separate breaches, and support reassessment after attempted repair?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 11, "questions": 26 } }, "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 betrayal, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess an alleged betrayal by recording the trust at stake, the act that breached it, competing interpretations, consequences and justified responses.", "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: defection, betrayal of secrets, fake defection.", "4 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 62 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 betrayal, 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": [ "defection", "betrayal of secrets", "fake defection" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 62 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 4 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 betrayal from another, and a betrayal 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a betrayal 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a betrayal 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal 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 betrayal?", "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 betrayal?", "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 betrayal 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 betrayal and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 betrayal is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a betrayal, 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 betrayal, 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 betrayal 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 } } } }