{ "model": { "rank": 5705, "code": "thing-q277569", "model_id": "vr.tr.freedom-of-thought", "name": "freedom of thought", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise and assess conditions affecting a person's freedom to form, hold, reconsider and withhold thoughts, and identify actions that protect that freedom.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.TME", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q277569/", "tier": 2, "score": 65, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 65, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q277569", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q277569", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T09:04:37Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "missingProviders": [ "Grok" ], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": null, "turns": null, "seconds": 5.9, "error": "Error: Internal error: {\n \"message\": \"API error (status 402 Payment Required): Grok Build usage balance exhausted\",\n \"http_status\": 402\n}", "retried": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 94.5, "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: 01a07b1b-543a-7ee1-952c-2503596844f4\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: freedom of thought\nRegistry id: vr.tr.freedom-of-thought\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.TME\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this en" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q277569", "registryId": "vr.tr.freedom-of-thought", "name": "freedom of thought", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.TME" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q277569/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.freedom-of-thought", "name": "freedom of thought", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise and assess conditions affecting a person's freedom to form, hold, reconsider and withhold thoughts, and identify actions that protect that freedom.", "definition": "", "scope_statement": "This model owns the assessment of freedom of thought in a specified situation: whose thinking is affected, which cognitive choices remain open, what pressures or intrusions are present, and which protective actions are available, without treating unexpressed thought as directly observable.", "in_scope": [ "Freedom to form, hold, question, change or decline to settle on a thought or conviction", "Freedom to withhold thoughts and refuse demands to disclose or affirm them", "Pressures that make adopting, abandoning or professing a thought a condition of safety, livelihood or participation", "Interventions that seek to direct thinking or infer private mental content", "Practical opportunities for reflection, doubt and consideration of alternatives", "Protective responses and explicit limits on what can be inferred about another person's thinking" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Publication, speech and audience access as governed by freedom of expression", "Religious observance, worship and institutional organisation beyond their effects on private thought", "General personal-data governance beyond information revealing or purporting to reveal thoughts", "Clinical diagnosis, cognitive capacity assessment and treatment effectiveness", "The truth, rationality or moral merit of particular beliefs", "General political participation and association beyond requirements imposed on a person's thinking" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The concern can exist without any public expression: a demand to abandon a private conviction engages this model even when the person has said nothing publicly.", "A restriction on speaking does not by itself establish a restriction on thinking; the assessment must identify effects on forming, holding, revising or withholding thought.", "Agreement after exposure to reasons does not by itself establish interference; the assessment examines whether refusal, doubt and reconsideration remain meaningfully available.", "An outward profession of belief does not establish inward assent; compelled affirmation and actual conviction must remain distinct.", "A claim to detect thoughts is assessed as an intrusion or inference practice, without accepting that the claimed mental content has been accurately identified." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Affected cognitive freedom", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Form; hold; question; revise; suspend judgement; withhold; multiple; uncertain", "why_it_matters": "Locates the specific freedom at issue instead of treating all influence or disagreement as equivalent." }, { "name": "Practical ability to refuse", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Available without identified penalty; available with penalty; unavailable; disputed; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Helps distinguish an invitation to consider an idea from a demand backed by consequences." }, { "name": "Consequence attached to nonconformity", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "None identified; social exclusion; loss of access; livelihood consequence; confinement or physical threat; other documented consequence; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Identifies what makes resistance costly and what a protective response must address." }, { "name": "Power over the thinker", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor-to-person relationship, including control of care, employment, education, movement, resources or platform access", "why_it_matters": "The same message can carry different pressure when its source controls something the person needs." }, { "name": "Mental-content exposure", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "No exposure identified; voluntary disclosure; compelled disclosure; behavioural inference; physiological inference; disputed inference", "why_it_matters": "Separates what a person chose to reveal from what another actor demanded or inferred." }, { "name": "Opportunity for reconsideration", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Supported; constrained; actively obstructed; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Freedom of thought includes revising or withholding judgement after initial agreement." }, { "name": "Basis for assessment", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Person's account; observed demand or conduct; documented rule; reported experience; technical claim; inference; conflicting evidence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents observations about behaviour from being presented as direct knowledge of private thought." } ], "affordances": [ "Identify which freedom to think, reconsider or withhold is implicated by a reported situation", "Compare demands, dependencies and refusal consequences to assess possible coercion", "Separate expressed statements, inferred mental content and the person's own account", "Evaluate whether proposed questioning or monitoring would itself intrude on private thought", "Identify protective options such as removing compelled affirmation, enabling confidential support or offering a practical exit", "Record unresolved evidence and seek clarification without requiring disclosure of the thought being protected" ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "protected-cognitive-choices", "name": "Protected cognitive choices", "description": "Identifies the person's freedom to develop and retain thoughts, including uncertainty and change.", "rationale": "An assessment needs to identify the cognitive choice being constrained without judging the content of the thought.", "layers": [ { "id": "formation-and-holding", "name": "Formation and holding", "description": "Examines freedom to arrive at and retain a thought without prescribed inward agreement.", "findings": [ { "id": "targeted-cognitive-choice", "name": "Targeted cognitive choice", "description": "Records whether a demand concerns what the person thinks, what they say or what they do, allowing overlaps without assuming equivalence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which freedom to form or hold a thought is affected, and what evidence identifies that target?", "kind": "definition", "id": "targeted-cognitive-choice-q01" }, { "text": "Does the demand require inward agreement, outward conformity or a particular action?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "targeted-cognitive-choice-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "doubt-and-revision", "name": "Doubt and revision", "description": "Examines whether the person can question, change or leave a conviction unsettled.", "findings": [ { "id": "permission-to-reconsider", "name": "Permission to reconsider", "description": "Records practical consequences of changing one's mind, expressing uncertainty or declining to adopt a position.", "questions": [ { "text": "What happens if the person withdraws earlier assent or says they remain undecided?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "permission-to-reconsider-q01" }, { "text": "What change would make reconsideration possible without the identified penalty?", "kind": "action", "id": "permission-to-reconsider-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "mental-privacy-and-disclosure", "name": "Mental privacy and disclosure", "description": "Addresses withholding thought and practices that demand, infer or expose mental content.", "rationale": "A person may face interference through exposure demands even when no attempt to change their thinking is evident.", "layers": [ { "id": "disclosure-and-profession", "name": "Disclosure and profession", "description": "Distinguishes chosen disclosure from compelled confession, affirmation or denial.", "findings": [ { "id": "control-over-disclosure", "name": "Control over disclosure", "description": "Records demands to reveal or profess thoughts and whether the person can decline without adverse consequences.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the person being asked to reveal a private view, affirm a prescribed view or deny holding a view?", "kind": "definition", "id": "control-over-disclosure-q01" }, { "text": "Can the person refuse or limit disclosure, and what follows if they do?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "control-over-disclosure-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "inferred-mental-content", "name": "Inferred mental content", "description": "Examines claims about thoughts derived from behaviour, communications or physiological signals.", "findings": [ { "id": "inference-without-assumed-access", "name": "Inference without assumed access", "description": "Records the inputs, claims and consequences of mental-content inference while keeping accuracy and access to actual thought unresolved unless supported.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who claims to infer the person's thoughts, from which observations and with what supporting evidence?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "inference-without-assumed-access-q01" }, { "text": "What decisions are made using that inference, including when the person disputes it?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "inference-without-assumed-access-q02" }, { "text": "Can exposure or use of the inference be stopped without requiring the person to disclose their actual thoughts?", "kind": "action", "id": "inference-without-assumed-access-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "coercion-and-dependence", "name": "Coercion and dependence", "description": "Examines how threats, conditions and unequal power affect freedom to resist prescribed thinking.", "rationale": "Formal choice can coexist with consequences that make refusal impracticable.", "layers": [ { "id": "conditions-of-conformity", "name": "Conditions of conformity", "description": "Identifies benefits, necessities or safety made conditional on apparent or actual mental conformity.", "findings": [ { "id": "nonconformity-consequences", "name": "Nonconformity consequences", "description": "Records explicit and credibly reported consequences attached to holding, abandoning or refusing to profess a view.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which consequence is attached to nonconformity, and is it threatened, imposed or anticipated by the person?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "nonconformity-consequences-q01" }, { "text": "What links the consequence to a thought or profession of belief rather than to independently specified conduct?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "nonconformity-consequences-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "dependence-and-exit", "name": "Dependence and exit", "description": "Examines the actor's control over necessities and the person's realistic alternatives.", "findings": [ { "id": "usable-refusal-and-exit", "name": "Usable refusal and exit", "description": "Records whether refusing an intervention or leaving its setting is a practical option given dependency, access and retaliation concerns.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the influencing actor control that the person cannot readily replace?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "usable-refusal-and-exit-q01" }, { "text": "What support or alternative access would make refusal or exit usable for this person?", "kind": "action", "id": "usable-refusal-and-exit-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "influence-and-reflective-space", "name": "Influence and reflective space", "description": "Examines how persuasion, information environments and targeted interventions affect opportunities for independent reflection.", "rationale": "Freedom of thought does not imply absence of influence; the model must examine how influence operates and whether it obstructs reconsideration.", "layers": [ { "id": "influence-mechanism", "name": "Influence mechanism", "description": "Characterises an intervention's stated purpose, methods and accessibility to scrutiny.", "findings": [ { "id": "scrutinisable-influence", "name": "Scrutinisable influence", "description": "Records whether the person can recognise, question and disengage from attempts to shape their thinking, without classifying every hidden influence as a settled violation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What method seeks to shape thinking, and what evidence supports the claimed purpose or effect?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "scrutinisable-influence-q01" }, { "text": "Can the person identify the source, challenge its claims and stop participating?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "scrutinisable-influence-q02" }, { "text": "Which features warrant concern beyond ordinary persuasion, and which remain uncertain?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "scrutinisable-influence-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "opportunities-for-reflection", "name": "Opportunities for reflection", "description": "Examines access to private reflection, alternative perspectives and time to reconsider.", "findings": [ { "id": "obstruction-of-reconsideration", "name": "Obstruction of reconsideration", "description": "Records practices such as enforced isolation from alternative views or relentless demands for assent when evidence connects them to constrained thinking.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which identifiable practices restrict private reflection or consideration of alternative views?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "obstruction-of-reconsideration-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes externally imposed obstruction from the person's chosen focus or voluntary commitments?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "obstruction-of-reconsideration-q02" }, { "text": "Which feasible adjustment would restore time, privacy or access needed for reconsideration?", "kind": "action", "id": "obstruction-of-reconsideration-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-and-protective-response", "name": "Assessment and protective response", "description": "Connects evidence about possible interference to actions that preserve the person's control over their thinking.", "rationale": "An agent must respond without claiming access to private thought or reproducing the disclosure pressure under assessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "evidence-and-assessment-limits", "name": "Evidence and assessment limits", "description": "Separates accounts, observations and inferences when judging the state of freedom of thought.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-state-judgement", "name": "Bounded state judgement", "description": "Assesses documented conditions and reported experiences while preserving uncertainty about inward assent and unobserved effects.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which conclusions rely on the person's account, observed conduct, a documented rule or an assessor's inference?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "bounded-state-judgement-q01" }, { "text": "What can be assessed without learning the content of the person's private thought?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-state-judgement-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "protection-without-compulsion", "name": "Protection without compulsion", "description": "Identifies responses that reduce interference without prescribing a replacement belief or forcing disclosure.", "findings": [ { "id": "person-directed-protection", "name": "Person-directed protection", "description": "Records the person's preferred assistance, available actions and foreseeable effects on exposure, dependence and retaliation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which response does the person want, and can that preference be established without demanding an account of their beliefs?", "kind": "action", "id": "person-directed-protection-q01" }, { "text": "Which available action reduces the identified pressure while avoiding additional exposure or compelled conformity?", "kind": "action", "id": "person-directed-protection-q02" }, { "text": "What observable change would show that refusal, privacy or reconsideration has become more practicable?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "person-directed-protection-q03" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which meanings of thought should this registry entry encompass: convictions alone, or also imagination, attention, inner speech and transient mental content?", "Which researched criteria distinguish persuasion, deception, manipulation and coercion for this model, especially in personalised digital environments?", "How should assessments account for children and people dependent on care or education without assuming either unrestricted authority over their thinking or identical circumstances to independent adults?", "Which claims about behavioural or physiological inference of mental content have sufficient evidence, and how should inaccurate but consequential inferences be represented?", "Which jurisdictional or institutional standards govern particular protective actions, and how should those standards connect to this model without being treated as universal definitions?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 10, "questions": 24 } }, "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 freedom of thought, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise and assess conditions affecting a person's freedom to form, hold, reconsider and withhold thoughts, and identify actions that protect that freedom.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 65 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 freedom of thought, 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 65 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 freedom of thought from another, and a freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought?", "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 freedom of thought?", "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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 freedom of thought is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought, 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 freedom of thought 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 } } } }