{ "model": { "rank": 5536, "code": "thing-q45635", "model_id": "vr.tr.casus-belli", "name": "casus belli", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify, attribute and assess an event or circumstance invoked as a reason for war while keeping the asserted justification distinct from underlying motives and any assessment of legality.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q45635/", "tier": 2, "score": 66, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 66, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.casus-belli", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q45635", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q45635", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T22:34:46Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 20.2, "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: 01a0884e-24a0-7123-ad8e-de0bd7b1e56d\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: casus belli\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: 1001 reg", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 68.8, "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: 01a0884e-2495-7b70-861c-abf7d34967db\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: casus belli\nRegistry id: vr.tr.casus-belli\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\n" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q45635", "registryId": "vr.tr.casus-belli", "name": "casus belli", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q45635/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.casus-belli", "name": "casus belli", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify, attribute and assess an event or circumstance invoked as a reason for war while keeping the asserted justification distinct from underlying motives and any assessment of legality.", "definition": "A casus belli is an event, act, or circumstance invoked by a political authority as grounds for going to war, whether or not it actually caused the war or provides a legally valid justification.", "scope_statement": "This model owns casus belli in the political and military sense: the relationship through which an actor treats an alleged event or circumstance as grounds for initiating, entering or escalating war, including competing interpretations of that relationship.", "in_scope": [ "Events and circumstances alleged to provide grounds for war", "Actors invoking those grounds, their intended audiences and their stated adversaries", "The argument connecting an alleged grievance to a proposed or actual resort to war", "Evidence supporting or contesting the triggering allegation", "Changes in the claim, its reception and its role in decisions over time" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete causal history of a war", "Military operations, targeting and campaign planning", "Comprehensive legal adjudication of a resort to force", "Treaty obligations and alliance activation conditions as independent objects", "War aims and peace settlements beyond their relationship to the asserted grounds", "Game mechanics using casus belli as a rule or resource" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An event becomes a casus belli in this model through an attributable connection to grounds for war; a serious incident alone does not establish that relationship.", "A background cause explains why conflict developed, whereas a casus belli identifies a reason invoked for resorting to war; the same circumstance can occupy both roles.", "Calling something a pretext adds a judgment about the relationship between stated grounds and actual motives; that judgment requires separate evidence.", "A treaty activation condition concerns an obligation or entitlement under an agreement; it becomes relevant here when an actor invokes it as grounds for entering war.", "Recognition as a casus belli does not establish that the alleged event occurred, that an adversary caused it or that the resulting use of force was lawful." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Usage sense", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Actor-declared grounds; contemporary attributed grounds; retrospective analytical label; disputed sense", "why_it_matters": "Separates an actor's own justification from terminology supplied by observers or later historians." }, { "name": "Invoking actor and authority", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor linked to speaker, institution, decision-making authority and represented constituency", "why_it_matters": "A private demand for war has a different role from a government's adopted position." }, { "name": "Alleged triggering circumstance", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Claim linked to a discrete incident, continuing condition, anticipated event or cumulative pattern", "why_it_matters": "Identifies what allegedly makes war warranted without assuming the allegation is true." }, { "name": "Responsibility attribution", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Accused actor, alleged conduct, attribution mechanism and supporting or opposing evidence", "why_it_matters": "The occurrence of an incident and the responsibility assigned for it can have different evidentiary support." }, { "name": "Invocation stage", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Conditional warning; asserted grounds; adopted decision rationale; retrospectively asserted; withdrawn; superseded", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes a threatened consequence from a rationale actually used in a war decision." }, { "name": "Justificatory register", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Legal; moral; security; treaty-based; religious; dynastic; mixed; other actor-specified register", "why_it_matters": "Preserves the standards the actor appeals to instead of imposing one universal test." }, { "name": "Evidence assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; supported; contested; contradicted; indeterminate, separately for each proposition and as of a stated date", "why_it_matters": "Prevents confidence in one part of the allegation from being transferred to the entire justification." }, { "name": "Audience reception", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Audience linked to endorsement, rejection, qualified acceptance, silence or unknown position, with date and source", "why_it_matters": "A claim can persuade one audience while being rejected by another." }, { "name": "Invocation-to-action interval", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Elapsed time in days, with date precision and uncertainty recorded", "why_it_matters": "Helps distinguish advance warnings, immediate justifications and explanations introduced after action began." } ], "affordances": [ "Reconstruct who invoked which circumstance as grounds for which resort to war.", "Separate incident evidence, responsibility attribution and the argument for war into independently assessable propositions.", "Compare rival accounts of the same claimed casus belli without merging their positions.", "Track whether a conditional trigger occurred and whether the invoking actor subsequently maintained, revised or abandoned its claim.", "Identify missing evidence and route questions of legal validity or historical causation to the appropriate neighbouring models." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-invocation", "name": "Meaning and invocation", "description": "Establishes the sense of casus belli being used and the attributable act of treating something as grounds for war.", "rationale": "The model must distinguish a declared justification from an observer's classification of an incident.", "layers": [ { "id": "sense-and-instance", "name": "Sense and instance", "description": "Defines what counts as an instance under the usage being recorded.", "findings": [ { "id": "grounds-rather-than-incident-alone", "name": "Grounds rather than incident alone", "description": "Record whether the term denotes an alleged triggering circumstance, an articulated justification or an analyst's relationship between the two.", "questions": [ { "text": "Whose definition of casus belli is being used, and does it require an explicit invocation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "grounds-rather-than-incident-alone-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this instance from an incident later associated with war only through chronology?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "grounds-rather-than-incident-alone-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "speaker-and-standing", "name": "Speaker and standing", "description": "Locates the invocation within the institutions and constituencies of the actor concerned.", "findings": [ { "id": "authority-to-invoke", "name": "Authority to invoke", "description": "Identify the speaker, represented actor and status of the statement within the decision to threaten or wage war.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which statement or record establishes who invoked these grounds, when and to whom?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "authority-to-invoke-q01" }, { "text": "Did the relevant decision-making authority adopt the claim, or did it remain an individual or factional position?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "authority-to-invoke-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "trigger-and-responsibility", "name": "Trigger and responsibility", "description": "Separates what allegedly happened from the claim that a particular adversary bears responsibility.", "rationale": "A casus belli may depend on disputed facts, uncertain attribution or a condition that has not yet occurred.", "layers": [ { "id": "trigger-specification", "name": "Trigger specification", "description": "Makes the alleged incident, condition or threshold precise enough to investigate.", "findings": [ { "id": "alleged-threshold-for-war", "name": "Alleged threshold for war", "description": "Capture the circumstance and any stated condition under which it would become grounds for war.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific event, continuing condition or anticipated act is alleged to warrant war?", "kind": "definition", "id": "alleged-threshold-for-war-q01" }, { "text": "If the invocation is conditional or cumulative, what observable threshold does the actor say must be crossed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "alleged-threshold-for-war-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "attribution-and-evidence", "name": "Attribution and evidence", "description": "Examines the evidentiary steps from an alleged occurrence to adversary responsibility.", "findings": [ { "id": "separate-occurrence-from-blame", "name": "Separate occurrence from blame", "description": "Assess evidence for the occurrence, its characterization and its attribution independently.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which sources support or contradict the alleged occurrence, and which independently address responsibility?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "separate-occurrence-from-blame-q01" }, { "text": "What connects the accused actor to the incident: direct action, authorization, support, omission or another alleged relationship?", "kind": "definition", "id": "separate-occurrence-from-blame-q02" }, { "text": "Which unresolved evidentiary gap could materially change the responsibility assessment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "separate-occurrence-from-blame-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "argument-for-war", "name": "Argument for war", "description": "Reconstructs how the invoking actor moves from a grievance to a claimed warrant for war.", "rationale": "Even a well-supported allegation does not explain, by itself, why the actor presents war as an appropriate response.", "layers": [ { "id": "normative-bridge", "name": "Normative bridge", "description": "Identifies the rules, values or security claims used to connect the trigger to war.", "findings": [ { "id": "claimed-warrant", "name": "Claimed warrant", "description": "Preserve the actor's justificatory reasoning and distinguish it from assessments supplied by other parties.", "questions": [ { "text": "What rule, obligation, value or security necessity is invoked to make this circumstance grounds for war?", "kind": "definition", "id": "claimed-warrant-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts of that reasoning are explicitly stated, and which have been reconstructed by an observer?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claimed-warrant-q02" }, { "text": "Which claims require a separate legal or ethical assessment before an agent can treat them as established?", "kind": "action", "id": "claimed-warrant-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-remedy", "name": "Response and remedy", "description": "Relates the stated grounds to the action demanded, threatened or taken.", "findings": [ { "id": "scope-of-the-claimed-response", "name": "Scope of the claimed response", "description": "Record the proposed resort to war and any stated conditions for avoiding or ending it.", "questions": [ { "text": "What initiation, entry or escalation of war does the actor claim this ground warrants?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "scope-of-the-claimed-response-q01" }, { "text": "What remedy, concession or change of circumstances would the actor accept as removing the stated grounds?", "kind": "action", "id": "scope-of-the-claimed-response-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "contestation-and-motives", "name": "Contestation and motives", "description": "Preserves disputes over the claim's credibility, acceptance and relationship to wider motives.", "rationale": "A model of casus belli must represent disagreement without equating an official account, an accusation of pretext or audience acceptance with truth.", "layers": [ { "id": "audience-and-counterclaim", "name": "Audience and counterclaim", "description": "Records how relevant parties respond to specific parts of the justification.", "findings": [ { "id": "located-disagreement", "name": "Located disagreement", "description": "Attribute acceptance and rejection to named audiences and identify the proposition each response concerns.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which domestic institutions, allies, adversaries or other audiences accepted or rejected the claim?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "located-disagreement-q01" }, { "text": "Does each disagreement concern the event, responsibility, the asserted warrant or the proposed response?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "located-disagreement-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "stated-grounds-and-other-motives", "name": "Stated grounds and other motives", "description": "Keeps the invoked reason distinct from hypotheses about why war was desired or chosen.", "findings": [ { "id": "pretext-as-an-assessed-claim", "name": "Pretext as an assessed claim", "description": "Treat allegations of pretext, fabrication or opportunistic use as claims requiring attribution and evidence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who characterizes the casus belli as sincere, opportunistic, fabricated or pretextual, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "pretext-as-an-assessed-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence demonstrate deception about the stated grounds, or only the presence of additional motives?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "pretext-as-an-assessed-claim-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "trajectory-and-decision-use", "name": "Trajectory and decision use", "description": "Tracks the claim through warnings, war decisions, revisions and later reassessment.", "rationale": "The timing and persistence of an invocation affect whether it explains a decision, threatens a future response or retrospectively justifies an action.", "layers": [ { "id": "invocation-timeline", "name": "Invocation timeline", "description": "Orders the alleged trigger, available evidence, public claims and relevant decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "contemporaneous-and-retrospective-grounds", "name": "Contemporaneous and retrospective grounds", "description": "Record what was asserted and knowable at each stage without importing later discoveries into earlier assessments.", "questions": [ { "text": "When were the trigger, invocation and relevant war decision recorded, and how precise are those dates?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "contemporaneous-and-retrospective-grounds-q01" }, { "text": "Which grounds appeared before the decision, and which were introduced or substantially revised afterward?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contemporaneous-and-retrospective-grounds-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "revision-and-use-limits", "name": "Revision and use limits", "description": "Identifies when an assessment must change and what conclusions it can support.", "findings": [ { "id": "reassessment-triggers", "name": "Reassessment triggers", "description": "Maintain the current status of the invocation and explicit limits on conclusions drawn from it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Has the invoking actor withdrawn, replaced or maintained the grounds after concessions, contradictory evidence or changed circumstances?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reassessment-triggers-q01" }, { "text": "What new evidence or authoritative decision would require the agent to revise its assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "reassessment-triggers-q02" }, { "text": "Which conclusions remain unsupported, including legality, actual motive and causal importance in the decision for war?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reassessment-triggers-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This covers the general diplomatic and historical concept; no narrower registry sense was supplied.", "Usage varies between an occasion for war, an asserted justification, and a pretext; context determines which meaning is intended.", "No sources were consulted; specific historical examples and legal applications require verification." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of casus belli this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "United Nations Charter, Article 2(4): prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations within its stated scope; asserting a casus belli does not itself establish an exception.", "United Nations Charter, Article 51: recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.", "United Nations Charter, Chapter VII: establishes the Security Council's authority concerning threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of casus belli 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": [ "Publicly explaining or defending a decision to initiate hostilities.", "Warning that a specified future action will be treated as grounds for war.", "Distinguishing a war's stated justification from its immediate trigger and underlying causes in historical analysis.", "Comparing official war rationales with evidence about decision-makers' motives." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of casus belli 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": [ "Treating an asserted casus belli as proof that the use of force is lawful.", "Confusing a publicly stated justification with an actual motive or underlying cause.", "Using fabricated, exaggerated, or misattributed incidents to justify hostilities.", "Escalating a dispute by declaring an ambiguous action grounds for war.", "Applying modern legal categories to historical conflicts without accounting for the rules and conventions of their period." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of casus belli 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": [ "The expression circulates internationally, but the political credibility of particular grounds for war varies across states, audiences, and historical periods.", "Contemporary international law evaluates asserted grounds through rules governing the use of force; many earlier practices of war justification operated under different legal and diplomatic conventions." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of casus belli 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": "cause of war", "difference": "A cause helps explain why war occurred; a casus belli is invoked as grounds for undertaking it." }, { "name": "pretext for war", "difference": "A pretext implies an ostensible or misleading rationale; calling something a casus belli does not by itself establish insincerity." }, { "name": "trigger of war", "difference": "A trigger precipitates hostilities; a casus belli supplies an asserted justification, although one incident can serve both roles." }, { "name": "declaration of war", "difference": "A declaration formally announces a state of war; a casus belli is the ground offered for it." }, { "name": "casus foederis", "difference": "A casus foederis is a circumstance activating treaty obligations, especially alliance commitments; a casus belli concerns grounds for war." }, { "name": "jus ad bellum", "difference": "Jus ad bellum comprises rules governing resort to force; a casus belli is a particular asserted ground assessed against applicable rules." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of casus belli this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference traditions require an explicit invocation, and which also call an uninvoked occasion or retrospective explanation a casus belli?", "How should the concept extend to non-state actors and undeclared hostilities without treating every justification for violence as grounds for war?", "Which historical and cultural differences in acceptable grounds for war require distinct interpretive treatment within this single registry entry?", "What evidentiary standards should distinguish a knowingly fabricated pretext from an erroneous but sincerely held allegation?", "How should several overlapping grounds be grouped when an actor adds, abandons or substitutes justifications during the same conflict?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 29 } }, "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 casus belli, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify, attribute and assess an event or circumstance invoked as a reason for war while keeping the asserted justification distinct from underlying motives and any assessment of legality.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 66 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 casus belli, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 66 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 casus belli from another, and a casus belli 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli 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 casus belli 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli 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 casus belli from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli 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 casus belli 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 casus belli between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli 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 casus belli, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a casus belli 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "process-and-outcome", "name": "Process, inputs and outcome", "description": "How a casus belli proceeds, what it needs and what it leaves behind.", "rationale": "An activity is known by its steps and its results, and both have to be recordable while it is still running.", "layers": [ { "id": "steps-and-sequence", "name": "Steps and sequence", "description": "The steps of a casus belli, their order and what may run in parallel.", "findings": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions", "name": "Steps, preconditions and completion", "description": "What has to be true before each step of a casus belli and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a casus belli, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a step of a casus belli, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a step of a casus belli is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-results", "name": "Inputs, resources and results", "description": "What a casus belli consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a casus belli takes and the results it leaves, wanted or not.", "questions": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the inputs and results of a casus belli, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the inputs and results of a casus belli, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the inputs and results of a casus belli 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 casus belli 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 casus belli 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 casus belli 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 casus belli 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 casus belli?", "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 casus belli?", "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 casus belli 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 casus belli and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli 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 casus belli is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a casus belli, 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 casus belli, 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 casus belli is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }