{ "model": { "rank": 4099, "code": "thing-q337349", "model_id": "vr.tr.honesty", "name": "honesty", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess honesty in representations and conduct, record uncertainty about intent and knowledge, and choose truthful, non-misleading responses or repairs.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.QLT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q337349/", "tier": 2, "score": 78, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "Xin", "Honorability" ], "aliasCount": 2, "merged": 2, "knownIn": 78, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.honesty-plant", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q337349", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q337349", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T19:28:29Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.1, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a087a3-b9a9-7462-ac5b-4d779cfc4ee4\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: honesty\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 004: 1001 register", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 60.7, "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: 01a087a3-b9a1-7061-a37e-81bcfe705637\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: honesty\nRegistry id: vr.tr.honesty\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContext " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q337349", "registryId": "vr.tr.honesty", "name": "honesty", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q337349/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.honesty", "name": "honesty", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess honesty in representations and conduct, record uncertainty about intent and knowledge, and choose truthful, non-misleading responses or repairs.", "definition": "Honesty is a disposition or practice of representing matters as one believes them to be without intentional deception, often understood more broadly to include avoidance of cheating, fraud, and self-deception.", "scope_statement": "This model owns honesty as a quality of agents, communications and conduct, including competing criteria for faithful representation of what is believed, known and done; it distinguishes episode-level judgments from claims about enduring character.", "in_scope": [ "Faithfulness between an agent's representations and its beliefs, knowledge, uncertainty and actions", "Lying, misleading truths, omissions, concealment and their context-dependent boundaries", "Competing accounts of honesty and the judgments on which they disagree", "Evidence for assessing particular episodes and patterns of honest conduct", "Disclosure, refusal, correction and acknowledgment of uncertainty" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Truth and factual accuracy independently of the speaker's epistemic position", "General moral integrity beyond its relationship to honest representation", "Trust, trustworthiness and reputation as broader relational qualities", "Privacy, confidentiality and disclosure duties except where they constrain an honesty judgment", "General sincerity of emotion or self-expression without a representational issue" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A false statement believed true can be an honest mistake; compare the statement with the speaker's contemporaneous belief as well as the facts.", "A literally true statement can be dishonest if deliberately arranged to induce a false understanding; inspect the intended and reasonably foreseeable interpretation.", "A sincere expression does not establish honesty about evidence or uncertainty; inspect whether the expressed confidence and claimed basis are faithfully represented.", "Silence or refusal is not automatically dishonest; identify any undertaking, contextual expectation or duty to disclose before judging an omission.", "One honest or dishonest episode does not establish a stable character trait; require evidence across opportunities and contexts." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Assessment target", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "utterance | document | omission | conduct episode | recurring practice | agent disposition", "why_it_matters": "Prevents judgments about a message from silently becoming judgments about a person or organisation." }, { "name": "Operative account of honesty", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "belief-expression fidelity | non-deception | context-sensitive candour | honesty as a disposition | explicitly specified alternative", "why_it_matters": "Makes disagreements about definition visible rather than treating one criterion as settled." }, { "name": "Representation-belief alignment", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "aligned | conflicting | partially aligned | indeterminate, with time and evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates possible dishonesty from factual error while acknowledging limited access to beliefs." }, { "name": "Epistemic basis represented", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "observation | testimony | inference | speculation | mixed | undisclosed | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Allows assessment of whether an agent misrepresented how it knew or supported a claim." }, { "name": "Misleading-intent assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "supported | contradicted | unresolved, with evidence and alternative explanations", "why_it_matters": "Keeps inferred intention separate from the existence of an error or misleading effect." }, { "name": "Disclosure expectation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "explicit undertaking | role-based expectation | contextual expectation | contested | absent | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Provides the context needed to assess selective disclosure without assuming total openness." }, { "name": "Assessment status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "supported as honest | supported as dishonest | mixed | contested | insufficient evidence, relative to a stated account", "why_it_matters": "Supports qualified decisions without forcing an unsupported binary verdict." }, { "name": "Observed correction latency", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "elapsed time from documented recognition of a misrepresentation to correction; unknown when recognition time is unobserved", "why_it_matters": "Records responsiveness to recognised misrepresentation without claiming that speed alone proves honesty." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare assessments of the same episode under explicitly named accounts of honesty.", "Separate factual accuracy, belief alignment, communicative effect and inferred intent.", "Identify evidence needed before attributing deception or an enduring disposition.", "Choose between a qualified statement, fuller disclosure, explicit refusal or acknowledgment of uncertainty.", "Prepare a correction that identifies the original misrepresentation and reaches affected recipients.", "Record unresolved disagreements and revise judgments when new evidence arrives." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "accounts-and-instances", "name": "Accounts and instances of honesty", "description": "Establishes which conception of honesty is being applied and what is being assessed.", "rationale": "Honesty judgments can diverge because assessors use different definitions or assess different targets.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-criteria", "name": "Competing criteria", "description": "Records candidate definitions, their advocates and cases that distinguish them.", "findings": [ { "id": "operative-honesty-account", "name": "Operative honesty account", "description": "Record whether the assessment requires faithful belief expression, avoidance of deception, sufficient candour or a broader disposition; identify supporting authors or communities through research.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the selected account require, and who explicitly advocates it?", "kind": "definition", "id": "operative-honesty-account-q01" }, { "text": "Would a deliberately misleading literal truth count as dishonest under this account?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "operative-honesty-account-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "episode-and-disposition", "name": "Episode and disposition", "description": "Separates an instance of honest conduct from a claim about stable character.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-target", "name": "Attribution target", "description": "Record the particular statement, omission or action under assessment and the additional evidence needed for a disposition claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is honesty being attributed to an episode, a practice or an agent's character?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attribution-target-q01" }, { "text": "What observed opportunities across contexts support extending an episode judgment to a disposition?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "attribution-target-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "belief-knowledge-and-expression", "name": "Belief, knowledge and expression", "description": "Examines what an agent represented relative to its evidenced epistemic position at the time.", "rationale": "An honesty assessment needs to distinguish falsehood from knowing misrepresentation and later knowledge from earlier belief.", "layers": [ { "id": "contemporaneous-belief", "name": "Contemporaneous belief", "description": "Reconstructs belief and access to information without assuming direct access to mental states.", "findings": [ { "id": "belief-expression-comparison", "name": "Belief-expression comparison", "description": "Keep expressed content, factual support and evidence of the agent's contemporaneous belief as separate records.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence indicates what the agent believed when it made the representation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "belief-expression-comparison-q01" }, { "text": "Does the discrepancy support knowing misrepresentation, an honest mistake or an unresolved alternative?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "belief-expression-comparison-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "represented-certainty-and-basis", "name": "Represented certainty and basis", "description": "Examines claims about confidence, verification and sources of knowledge.", "findings": [ { "id": "epistemic-presentation", "name": "Epistemic presentation", "description": "Record whether claims of having observed, checked or established something match the available evidence about what the agent actually did.", "questions": [ { "text": "What certainty, verification or firsthand access did the agent claim, and what supports those claims?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "epistemic-presentation-q01" }, { "text": "What qualification would faithfully express the agent's uncertainty and evidential basis?", "kind": "action", "id": "epistemic-presentation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "deception-and-disclosure", "name": "Deception and disclosure", "description": "Assesses intended understanding, misleading presentation and the boundaries of omission.", "rationale": "Literal wording alone cannot resolve honesty where implication, selection or silence shapes another party's understanding.", "layers": [ { "id": "literal-and-conveyed-content", "name": "Literal and conveyed content", "description": "Distinguishes what was stated from what recipients were invited to understand.", "findings": [ { "id": "misleading-representation", "name": "Misleading representation", "description": "Record literal content, contextual implications, observed recipient understanding and evidence of intent separately.", "questions": [ { "text": "What understanding did the wording, framing or selection of facts reasonably invite in this context?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "misleading-representation-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes intended deception from ambiguity, misunderstanding or careless communication?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "misleading-representation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "omission-and-legitimate-withholding", "name": "Omission and legitimate withholding", "description": "Examines whether withholding information creates a misleading representation under an applicable disclosure expectation.", "findings": [ { "id": "withholding-boundary", "name": "Withholding boundary", "description": "Record omitted information, its relevance, the basis for expecting disclosure and any confidentiality or privacy constraint.", "questions": [ { "text": "What undertaking or contextual expectation makes this omission relevant to honesty?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "withholding-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Could an explicit refusal or limited answer preserve confidentiality while avoiding a misleading impression?", "kind": "action", "id": "withholding-boundary-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-and-operationalisation", "name": "Assessment and operationalisation", "description": "Connects honesty judgments to observable evidence and the limits of practical measures.", "rationale": "Intent and dispositions are often incompletely observable, and measures may capture only selected aspects of honesty.", "layers": [ { "id": "evidence-and-alternatives", "name": "Evidence and alternatives", "description": "Organises the basis for a judgment and explanations that could defeat it.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-assessment", "name": "Qualified assessment", "description": "Attach each assessment to evidence, a stated definition and unresolved alternatives; do not treat inconsistency alone as proof of deceit.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which records support the assessment, and are they contemporaneous, independent or retrospective?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence would distinguish deception from memory failure, changed belief or conflicting interpretations?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "qualified-assessment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "practical-measures", "name": "Practical measures", "description": "Records how research or practice turns an account of honesty into an observable indicator.", "findings": [ { "id": "measure-to-concept-fit", "name": "Measure-to-concept fit", "description": "For candidate measures such as self-reports, observer ratings or verified reporting tasks, record the procedure, target construct and limits of inference.", "questions": [ { "text": "What response or behaviour is measured, under what opportunity and incentive conditions?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "measure-to-concept-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Does the measure assess truthful reporting, non-deception, willingness to disclose or a broader disposition, and what does it leave unobserved?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "measure-to-concept-fit-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "honest-response-and-repair", "name": "Honest response and repair", "description": "Supports action before a representation is made and after a misrepresentation is recognised.", "rationale": "The model must guide honest conduct and correction as well as classify past episodes.", "layers": [ { "id": "response-selection", "name": "Response selection", "description": "Chooses a response faithful to the agent's epistemic position and applicable disclosure constraints.", "findings": [ { "id": "faithful-response-options", "name": "Faithful response options", "description": "Consider direct answers, uncertainty statements, partial disclosures and explicit refusals in relation to the understanding each would create.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which response accurately represents what is known, uncertain and withheld?", "kind": "action", "id": "faithful-response-options-q01" }, { "text": "What relevant misunderstanding could this response create, and how can it be prevented?", "kind": "action", "id": "faithful-response-options-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "correction-and-accountability", "name": "Correction and accountability", "description": "Tracks acknowledgment and correction without treating later repair as proof of earlier honesty.", "findings": [ { "id": "misrepresentation-repair", "name": "Misrepresentation repair", "description": "Record what was corrected, when the need was recognised, who received the correction and which misleading impressions remain unresolved.", "questions": [ { "text": "What correction would clearly identify the misleading representation and reach those who relied on it?", "kind": "action", "id": "misrepresentation-repair-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows the correction was delivered and addressed the original misunderstanding?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "misrepresentation-repair-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This covers honesty as a moral and behavioural quality; no narrower registry sense was supplied.", "Accounts disagree about whether honesty requires only avoiding lies or also avoiding misleading omissions, cheating, and self-deception.", "Measurement details require instrument-specific checking; neither a personality score nor a task outcome is a universal measure of honesty." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of honesty 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": [ "Honesty in communication", "Honesty in dealings and conduct", "Intellectual honesty", "Honesty with oneself" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of honesty 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": [ "Assessing trustworthiness in personal and professional relationships.", "Guiding accurate reporting of research methods, results, and uncertainty.", "Evaluating representations made in business transactions and public communication.", "Informing educational expectations concerning cheating and attribution.", "Studying moral conduct and personality differences." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of honesty this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "HEXACO Honesty-Humility questionnaire score", "typical_range": "Instrument-dependent; commonly averaged from responses scored 1-5", "unit": "Questionnaire scale points" }, { "quantity": "Truthful-report rate in a task with verifiable outcomes", "typical_range": "0-100", "unit": "Percent" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of honesty 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": [ "Literally true statements can deceive through omission, framing, or implication.", "Sincere reporting can transmit falsehood when the speaker is mistaken.", "Self-reports of honesty are vulnerable to impression management and limited self-knowledge.", "Behaviour in one experimental task may not establish honesty across situations.", "Expectations of complete disclosure can conflict with privacy, confidentiality, and protection from harm." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of honesty this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Cultural and institutional norms differ in how they evaluate tactful withholding, politeness, and obligations to disclose." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of honesty 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": "Truthfulness", "difference": "Truthfulness chiefly concerns truthful communication; broader accounts of honesty also cover cheating and other conduct." }, { "name": "Accuracy", "difference": "Accuracy concerns correspondence with facts; an honest statement can be inaccurate through sincere error." }, { "name": "Sincerity", "difference": "Sincerity concerns expressing genuine beliefs or feelings; honesty can additionally require avoiding deliberately misleading impressions." }, { "name": "Integrity", "difference": "Integrity concerns coherence and adherence to commitments or principles across conduct; honesty specifically concerns deception and truthful dealing." }, { "name": "Transparency", "difference": "Transparency concerns visibility and accessibility of information; honesty does not necessarily require disclosing everything." }, { "name": "Honesty-Humility", "difference": "The HEXACO personality factor includes sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance, and modesty, making it broader than honesty alone." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of honesty this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works, authors and research traditions support the candidate accounts, and which disagreements concern definition rather than moral justification?", "When should reckless assertion, wilful ignorance or negligent failure to check count as dishonesty rather than a separate epistemic failure?", "How do role, culture and conversational context shape disclosure expectations without making honesty assessments arbitrary?", "Which operationalisations distinguish honesty from accuracy, compliance and impression management, and how far do their results generalise?", "How should honesty be attributed to organisations and AI systems when relevant beliefs, knowledge and responsibility are distributed or cannot be represented as a person's mental states?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }, "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 honesty, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess honesty in representations and conduct, record uncertainty about intent and knowledge, and choose truthful, non-misleading responses or repairs.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: Xin, Honorability.", "2 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 78 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 honesty, 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": [ { "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": [ "Xin", "Honorability" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 78 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 2 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 honesty from another, and a honesty 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 honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty 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 honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty 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 honesty between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a honesty 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 honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty 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 honesty 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 honesty 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 honesty 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 honesty?", "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 honesty?", "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 honesty 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 honesty and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 honesty is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a honesty, 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 honesty, 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 honesty 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 } } } }