{ "model": { "rank": 3485, "code": "thing-q34302", "model_id": "vr.tr.doubt", "name": "doubt", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and characterise doubt, assess what sustains it, and identify proportionate inquiry or action without treating uncertainty as a defect that must always be removed.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.QLT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q34302/", "tier": 2, "score": 85, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "impostor syndrome", "dubious origin" ], "aliasCount": 2, "merged": 2, "knownIn": 85, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.doubt-attribute", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q34302", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q34302", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T14:53:07Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 24.1, "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: 01a07c5a-9ad4-7ea3-921a-8bbba3c3d31f\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: doubt\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.STA\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 546 things:\n# Batch 003: 1001 registered", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 80.2, "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: 01a07c5a-9ac7-70d0-8cc3-811fc38aef7d\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: doubt\nRegistry id: vr.tr.doubt\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.STA\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContext for " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q34302", "registryId": "vr.tr.doubt", "name": "doubt", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.STA" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q34302/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.doubt", "name": "doubt", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and characterise doubt, assess what sustains it, and identify proportionate inquiry or action without treating uncertainty as a defect that must always be removed.", "definition": "Doubt is a state or attitude in which a person questions or lacks settled confidence in a proposition, judgment, capacity, or proposed action, without necessarily rejecting it.", "scope_statement": "This model owns doubt as a subject's questioning or unsettled attitude toward a claim, interpretation, person's reliability, capacity, or proposed action, including deliberate methodological doubt; it treats definitions and boundaries as research questions where accounts differ.", "in_scope": [ "The subject experiencing or deliberately adopting doubt and the object being questioned.", "The content, grounds, alternatives, and possible defeaters that make a particular doubt intelligible.", "Experienced doubt, expressed doubt, and deliberately adopted methodological doubt, with their provenance distinguished.", "The intensity, persistence, recurrence, and practical consequences of an episode of doubt.", "Ways of investigating, tolerating, revising, or resolving doubt and the criteria for stopping inquiry." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Uncertainty in a dataset or probability model without evidence that a subject questions anything.", "Ignorance, disbelief, and suspension of judgment considered independently of doubt.", "Skepticism as a philosophical doctrine or school.", "Anxiety and other clinical conditions, including their diagnosis and treatment.", "Trustworthiness, competence, and truth as properties of what is doubted rather than of the doubting attitude.", "Indecision caused solely by equally attractive options without any questioned claim or commitment." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify what the subject questions: missing knowledge alone does not establish doubt unless some claim, expectation, interpretation, or commitment is unsettled.", "Separate questioning whether a claim is true from affirming that it is false; a rejection is not by itself evidence of continuing doubt.", "Record confidence and doubt separately: a confidence estimate alone does not reveal whether the subject is actively questioning the claim.", "Separate doubt about an outcome from fear of that outcome; either can be reported without the other.", "Distinguish an inquiry strategy that provisionally questions a premise from a report that its user personally feels doubtful." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Doubting subject", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Person or attributed collective; identify whose report or interpretation establishes the attribution.", "why_it_matters": "Prevents disagreement between people from being mistaken for doubt within each person." }, { "name": "Object and questioned content", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Target claim, interpretation, reliability judgment, capacity judgment, or proposed action, with the questioned aspect stated explicitly.", "why_it_matters": "Makes the doubt specific enough to investigate and distinguishes related doubts about the same target." }, { "name": "Mode of doubt", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Reported experience; attributed experience; expressed challenge; deliberate methodological stance; mixed; undetermined.", "why_it_matters": "An utterance or method does not automatically establish the speaker's experienced state." }, { "name": "Position toward the questioned claim", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Tentative acceptance; judgment withheld; tentative rejection; fluctuating; unspecified.", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether doubt qualifies an existing belief or accompanies another attitude." }, { "name": "Reported strength of doubt", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Verbatim report or explicitly named instrument and scale; no assumed universal unit.", "why_it_matters": "Supports comparisons only where the measurement meaning and context are known." }, { "name": "Grounds for questioning", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Contrary evidence; inconsistent evidence; source concern; ambiguity; missing justification; salient alternative; felt unease; methodological instruction; unspecified.", "why_it_matters": "Connects the doubt to an appropriate investigation without presuming that every doubt has an articulated argument." }, { "name": "Temporal pattern", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Onset and duration when known; intermittent, persistent, recurrent, or undetermined.", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes a new challenge from repeated reopening of an already investigated question." }, { "name": "Practical effect", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Affected decision or activity and observed response, such as checking, delay, qualification, withdrawal, or proceeding.", "why_it_matters": "Separates having doubt from the consequences attributed to it." }, { "name": "Resolution criterion", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Specified evidence threshold; specified action threshold; accepted residual doubt; no criterion stated.", "why_it_matters": "Makes it possible to assess progress without equating resolution with certainty." } ], "affordances": [ "Express a vague doubt as a precise question while preserving ambiguity that the subject has not resolved.", "Map stated grounds and competing possibilities to the particular claim they challenge.", "Select a discriminating check, source comparison, or clarification appropriate to the doubt.", "Record changes in doubt separately from changes in belief, evidence, and action.", "Support a decision that acknowledges residual doubt and the consequences of acting or waiting.", "Review whether further inquiry can change the judgment or decision before repeating checks." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "doubt-content-and-boundaries", "name": "Doubt content and boundaries", "description": "Establishes who doubts what and which sense of doubt the record uses.", "rationale": "Doubt cannot be assessed from the word alone: questioning truth, reliability, ability, and action can require different responses.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject-and-questioned-content", "name": "Subject and questioned content", "description": "Locates the attitude in a subject and identifies its intentional target.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-target-of-questioning", "name": "Explicit target of questioning", "description": "Record the target and the precise aspect questioned, preserving the subject's wording where a propositional paraphrase would change the meaning.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who is doubting, and what claim, interpretation, reliability, capacity, or course of action is being questioned?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-target-of-questioning-q01" }, { "text": "Is the doubt narrowly about one aspect of the target or broadly expressed without a settled object?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "explicit-target-of-questioning-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "sense-and-neighbouring-attitudes", "name": "Sense and neighbouring attitudes", "description": "Records the working account of doubt and distinguishes it from adjacent attitudes.", "findings": [ { "id": "working-definition-and-contrast", "name": "Working definition and contrast", "description": "Identify the account being applied, its source or proponent, and whether it treats doubt as questioning, reduced confidence, unsettled judgment, or another attitude.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which reference, school, researcher, or participant supplies the definition used here, and what would count as an instance under that account?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "working-definition-and-contrast-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this instance from ignorance, disbelief, suspended judgment, fear, or indecision?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "working-definition-and-contrast-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "grounds-and-live-alternatives", "name": "Grounds and live alternatives", "description": "Maps what prompted the doubt and which possibilities remain open for the subject.", "rationale": "An appropriate response depends on whether the doubt concerns evidence, its interpretation, its source, or an unarticulated concern.", "layers": [ { "id": "triggers-and-supporting-reasons", "name": "Triggers and supporting reasons", "description": "Separates the event that elicited doubt from reasons offered to justify it.", "findings": [ { "id": "trigger-versus-ground", "name": "Trigger versus ground", "description": "Record the onset event, stated reasons, and their evidential status without assuming that what caused doubt also justifies it.", "questions": [ { "text": "What prompted this doubt, and which reasons does the subject now offer for continuing to question the target?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "trigger-versus-ground-q01" }, { "text": "Does each reason challenge the claim itself, the reliability of its source, or the inference connecting evidence to the claim?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "trigger-versus-ground-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "alternatives-and-discriminating-evidence", "name": "Alternatives and discriminating evidence", "description": "Identifies competing possibilities and checks capable of separating them.", "findings": [ { "id": "live-alternatives", "name": "Live alternatives", "description": "Record possibilities the subject actually considers and label any additional alternatives introduced by an agent.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which alternative explanations or outcomes remain live for the subject, and which were introduced by someone else?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "live-alternatives-q01" }, { "text": "What obtainable observation would discriminate among these alternatives or weaken the stated grounds for doubt?", "kind": "action", "id": "live-alternatives-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "experience-expression-and-method", "name": "Experience, expression, and method", "description": "Distinguishes felt doubt from communicated questioning and deliberately adopted doubt.", "rationale": "An agent must not infer an internal state directly from a challenge, a rhetorical question, or a methodological exercise.", "layers": [ { "id": "attribution-and-expression", "name": "Attribution and expression", "description": "Preserves the evidence supporting an attribution of doubt.", "findings": [ { "id": "basis-for-attributing-doubt", "name": "Basis for attributing doubt", "description": "Keep self-report, observed language, behaviour, and third-party interpretation distinct, including uncertainty about their relationship.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is doubt established by the subject's report, an explicit challenge, observed checking, or another person's interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "basis-for-attributing-doubt-q01" }, { "text": "Could the expression serve politeness, argument testing, or another communicative purpose without establishing experienced doubt?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "basis-for-attributing-doubt-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "deliberate-questioning", "name": "Deliberate questioning", "description": "Describes doubt adopted as a procedure for examining commitments.", "findings": [ { "id": "methodological-doubt-protocol", "name": "Methodological doubt protocol", "description": "Record which assumptions are provisionally questioned, the purpose of doing so, and the conditions for ending the exercise.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the subject reporting an unsettled attitude or deliberately treating a premise as questionable for an inquiry?", "kind": "definition", "id": "methodological-doubt-protocol-q01" }, { "text": "Which premises may be challenged, and what result would permit the inquiry to restore or revise them?", "kind": "action", "id": "methodological-doubt-protocol-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "strength-and-course", "name": "Strength and course", "description": "Tracks how doubt is operationalised and how it changes over time.", "rationale": "A single confidence value can obscure persistent questioning, fluctuation, or repeated recurrence.", "layers": [ { "id": "operationalisation-of-doubt", "name": "Operationalisation of doubt", "description": "Makes measurement choices explicit and limits comparisons to supported interpretations.", "findings": [ { "id": "measure-and-construct-fit", "name": "Measure and construct fit", "description": "Record the exact report, task, or instrument and whether it measures doubt directly or uses a proxy such as confidence or checking.", "questions": [ { "text": "What question, instrument, or task operationalises doubt, and what definition does that operationalisation assume?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "measure-and-construct-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Does the measure distinguish questioning from low confidence, distress, and frequency of checking?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "measure-and-construct-fit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "persistence-and-recurrence", "name": "Persistence and recurrence", "description": "Tracks episodes and changes in relation to evidence and context.", "findings": [ { "id": "trajectory-and-reopening", "name": "Trajectory and reopening", "description": "Record when doubt appeared, diminished, or returned and whether the subject reports a new ground for reopening the question.", "questions": [ { "text": "When did the doubt begin, and how have its reported strength and frequency changed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "trajectory-and-reopening-q01" }, { "text": "When it returned, was there new evidence, a changed standard of assurance, or no identified change?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "trajectory-and-reopening-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inquiry-action-and-stopping", "name": "Inquiry, action, and stopping", "description": "Connects doubt to feasible inquiry, practical decisions, and explicit stopping conditions.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish what would settle a question from what would justify acting while the question remains open.", "layers": [ { "id": "consequences-and-response", "name": "Consequences and response", "description": "Identifies affected decisions and proportionate ways to respond.", "findings": [ { "id": "decision-relevant-doubt", "name": "Decision-relevant doubt", "description": "Record the decision affected, consequences of error or delay, and whether further information could alter the available action.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which decision or activity does this doubt affect, and what are the consequences of acting, waiting, or being mistaken?", "kind": "action", "id": "decision-relevant-doubt-q01" }, { "text": "Which feasible clarification or check could change the judgment or chosen action?", "kind": "action", "id": "decision-relevant-doubt-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "resolution-and-residual-doubt", "name": "Resolution and residual doubt", "description": "Distinguishes epistemic change, practical closure, and continuing uncertainty.", "findings": [ { "id": "stopping-without-assumed-certainty", "name": "Stopping without assumed certainty", "description": "Record whether inquiry ended through revised judgment, an adequate action threshold, accepted residual doubt, or a practical constraint.", "questions": [ { "text": "What would count as resolving this doubt, and what lesser condition would be enough to act?", "kind": "definition", "id": "stopping-without-assumed-certainty-q01" }, { "text": "What remains unsettled when inquiry stops, and what new evidence or changed circumstance would justify reopening it?", "kind": "action", "id": "stopping-without-assumed-certainty-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 entry covers doubt as a psychological and epistemic attitude; no narrower registry sense was supplied.", "The varieties listed overlap and do not constitute a standardized taxonomy.", "Accounts differ on whether doubt requires active questioning or can consist simply in reduced confidence; confidence ratings do not capture every aspect of doubt." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of doubt 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": [ "Epistemic doubt about whether a claim is true or justified", "Methodological doubt deliberately used to test beliefs", "Practical doubt about what action to take", "Self-doubt about one's abilities or judgments", "Religious doubt about faith commitments" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of doubt 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": [ "Philosophical inquiry uses doubt to examine the grounds and limits of knowledge.", "Scientific investigation uses articulated doubts to motivate testing and scrutiny of explanations.", "Decision-making uses doubt to identify assumptions that warrant further information or deliberation.", "Education uses questioning of apparent certainties to develop critical thinking." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of doubt 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": "Self-reported confidence in a specified proposition or judgment", "typical_range": "Instrument-dependent; some rating scales run from 0 to 100", "unit": "Scale points; an indirect indicator rather than a universal measure of doubt" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of doubt 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": [ "Persistent doubt can contribute to indecision, repeated checking, or avoidance.", "Indiscriminate doubt can undermine acceptance of well-supported conclusions.", "Selective doubt can protect preferred beliefs by applying unequal standards of evidence.", "Treating all doubt as irrational or pathological can suppress legitimate inquiry." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of doubt 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": "uncertainty", "difference": "Uncertainty can describe incomplete information or an unsettled outcome without anyone questioning it; doubt describes an attitude of questioning or unsettled confidence." }, { "name": "disbelief", "difference": "Disbelief involves rejecting a proposition or taking it to be false; doubt can leave its truth unresolved." }, { "name": "suspension of judgment", "difference": "Suspension of judgment involves withholding both assent and rejection; doubt can coexist with a tentative belief." }, { "name": "skepticism", "difference": "Skepticism is a broader questioning stance or philosophical position; doubt can be a particular, temporary episode." }, { "name": "indecision", "difference": "Indecision concerns failure to settle on a choice; doubt can concern a claim without any choice being required." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of doubt this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which philosophical and psychological accounts best distinguish doubt from low confidence, suspension of judgment, and disbelief, and where do their instance criteria conflict?", "Which research instruments measure doubt itself, and what evidence supports their validity across propositional doubt, self-doubt, and doubt about others?", "Can diffuse doubt without a clearly identified object be represented within the same account as doubt about an explicit claim?", "When is an attribution of collective doubt warranted beyond recording disagreement or individual reports within a group?", "What context-sensitive criteria distinguish productive reconsideration from repeated checking that adds no decision-relevant information, without making a clinical inference?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "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 doubt, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise and characterise doubt, assess what sustains it, and identify proportionate inquiry or action without treating uncertainty as a defect that must always be removed.", "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: impostor syndrome, dubious origin.", "2 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 85 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 doubt, 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": [ "impostor syndrome", "dubious origin" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 85 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 doubt from another, and a doubt 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 doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt 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 doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt 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 doubt between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a doubt 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 doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt 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 doubt 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 doubt 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 doubt 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 doubt?", "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 doubt?", "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 doubt 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 doubt and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 doubt is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a doubt, 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 doubt, 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 doubt 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 } } } }