{ "model": { "rank": 5695, "code": "thing-q466439", "model_id": "vr.tr.extremism", "name": "extremism", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to assess a claim of extremism against an explicit definition, distinguish beliefs from conduct and threats, and identify evidence-supported, proportionate next steps.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q466439/", "tier": 2, "score": 65, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "Jewish extremism", "Fulani extremism in Nigeria", "anti-institutional extremism", "Domestic Extremism", "extremist formation", "nihilistic violent extremism", "political extremism", "anti-establishment extremism", "online extremism", "violent extremism", "religious extremism", "ultranationalism", "christian extremism", "Lusitanian nationalism", "palingenetic ultranationalism", "National Bolshevism", "French ultra-nationalism" ], "aliasCount": 17, "merged": 18, "knownIn": 65, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q466439", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q466439", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T09:02:34Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "missingProviders": [ "Grok" ], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": null, "turns": null, "seconds": 4.8, "error": "Error: Internal error: {\n \"message\": \"API error (status 402 Payment Required): Grok Build usage balance exhausted\",\n \"http_status\": 402\n}", "retried": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 90.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07b19-8330-78e2-84d3-35bd3bb18efb\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: extremism\nRegistry id: vr.tr.extremism\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA Ver" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q466439", "registryId": "vr.tr.extremism", "name": "extremism", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q466439/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.extremism", "name": "extremism", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to assess a claim of extremism against an explicit definition, distinguish beliefs from conduct and threats, and identify evidence-supported, proportionate next steps.", "definition": "", "scope_statement": "This model owns the assessment of extremism attributed to a position, practice, actor or collective within a specified context, including the classification basis, supporting and contrary evidence, relationship to coercion or violence, and limits on action justified by that assessment.", "in_scope": [ "The definition, reference context and threshold used to classify something as extremist", "Attributed commitments concerning opponents, pluralism, equal standing and permissible means", "Evidence distinguishing expressed beliefs, endorsed actions, preparation and observed conduct", "The reach, persistence and variation of extremist commitments within an assessed subject", "Changes in the assessment and the conditions for proportionate intervention or reassessment" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete biographies, identities and organizational structures of assessed actors", "General models of political, religious or philosophical ideologies", "Full incident records and operational investigation of violence or terrorism", "Criminal liability, proscription and jurisdiction-specific legal adjudication", "General models of protest, civil disobedience, polarization and radical social change", "Platform-wide content moderation policies and enforcement workflows" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A classification must satisfy stated extremism criteria; distance from majority opinion, novelty or unpopularity alone does not establish it.", "A proposal for fundamental change must be assessed separately from its stance toward coercion, violence, opponents and equal standing; radical ambition alone does not settle the classification.", "Quoted, reported, satirical or critically examined extremist material must be distinguished from endorsement through evidence of communicative context.", "Belief, advocacy, preparation and action must remain distinguishable; evidence for one does not automatically establish the others.", "An extremism assessment and a terrorism, violence or illegality assessment must each meet their own criteria; neither classification automatically supplies the other." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Assessment subject", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "statement | position | practice | individual | group | network | institution", "why_it_matters": "Sets the unit to which evidence and conclusions apply and prevents a statement-level judgment from becoming an unsupported judgment about an entire population." }, { "name": "Classification framework", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named definition, issuing authority or author, version, criteria and applicable context", "why_it_matters": "Makes the meaning of extremism inspectable instead of treating the label as self-explanatory." }, { "name": "Classification status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unassessed | insufficient evidence | criteria met | criteria not met | contested; relative to a specified framework", "why_it_matters": "Separates unresolved evidence from a supported positive or negative assessment." }, { "name": "Normative reference", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Explicit reference to political norms, legal standards, rights principles or another stated baseline", "why_it_matters": "Exposes which baseline makes the position extreme and allows that baseline itself to be challenged." }, { "name": "Stance toward opponents", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Record separately: recognition of equal standing, acceptance of opposition, exclusion, subordination, elimination, mixed or unknown", "why_it_matters": "Captures the concrete treatment envisaged for disagreement without reducing all ideological differences to extremism." }, { "name": "Relationship to coercion and violence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Separately evidenced rejection, conditional acceptance, endorsement, threat, preparation or enactment; mixed or unknown permitted", "why_it_matters": "Supports distinctions between classification, harmful conduct and a credible threat." }, { "name": "Evidence coverage", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Number of independently corroborated observations, observation period and proportion of required criteria supported", "why_it_matters": "Shows the extent of the evidence while avoiding the assumption that repeated copies of one allegation are independent corroboration." }, { "name": "Attribution reach", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "individual expression | factional position | leadership position | formal policy | demonstrated collective practice | disputed | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Prevents unsupported generalization from members to organizations or from organizations to associated communities." }, { "name": "Observed trajectory", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "stable | intensifying | moderating | internally diverging | disengaged from specified conduct | unclear; over a stated interval", "why_it_matters": "Enables time-bounded reassessment without assuming a fixed identity or inevitable progression toward violence." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess an extremism attribution under a named framework and explain which criteria are supported, contradicted or unresolved.", "Compare assessments under different frameworks without silently merging their definitions.", "Trace an allegation to contextualized evidence and distinguish endorsement from quotation, association or hostile attribution.", "Separate ideological classification from a conduct or threat assessment and route each to the appropriate process.", "Identify proportionate next steps within an agent's authority, including further inquiry, correction, review or referral based on independently evidenced harm.", "Reassess, narrow or withdraw an attribution when evidence, conduct or the applicable framework changes." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "classification-and-boundaries", "name": "Classification and boundaries", "description": "Establishes what extremism means in this assessment and what would count against applying the label.", "rationale": "Without an explicit framework and exclusions, the label can collapse disagreement, radical change and harmful conduct into one judgment.", "layers": [ { "id": "definition-and-reference", "name": "Definition and reference", "description": "Locates the definition, its authority and its normative reference.", "findings": [ { "id": "applicable-extremism-criteria", "name": "Applicable extremism criteria", "description": "Record the chosen definition, its necessary or sufficient criteria, and why it applies to the subject and context.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which definition is being used, and does it turn on ideological distance, treatment of others, permissible means or a stated combination?", "kind": "definition", "id": "applicable-extremism-criteria-q01" }, { "text": "Who supplied this definition, for what purpose, and which version and context govern its use?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "applicable-extremism-criteria-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "exclusions-and-disagreement", "name": "Exclusions and disagreement", "description": "Tests competing interpretations and boundaries with legitimate dissent and radicalism.", "findings": [ { "id": "boundary-and-counterevidence", "name": "Boundary and counterevidence", "description": "Record why the subject does or does not cross the chosen threshold, including evidence supporting an alternative interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this case from unpopular belief, peaceful radical reform, civil disobedience or forceful criticism?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "boundary-and-counterevidence-q01" }, { "text": "Which criterion fails or remains unresolved, and would another relevant framework classify the same evidence differently?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "boundary-and-counterevidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "commitments-and-permissible-means", "name": "Commitments and permissible means", "description": "Examines the envisioned social order, treatment of opposition and means regarded as acceptable.", "rationale": "An assessment needs concrete commitments that explain the classification rather than inference from ideological labels or affiliations.", "layers": [ { "id": "opposition-and-equal-standing", "name": "Opposition and equal standing", "description": "Records how the subject proposes to treat disagreement and people outside its preferred community.", "findings": [ { "id": "treatment-of-opponents", "name": "Treatment of opponents", "description": "Record explicit positions and demonstrated practices concerning opponents' participation, rights and continued existence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the subject recognize opponents' equal standing and ability to organize, dissent and participate, and what evidence supports that reading?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "treatment-of-opponents-q01" }, { "text": "Does hostile language concern criticism of ideas, exclusion from participation, subordination or elimination of people, and where is the interpretation uncertain?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "treatment-of-opponents-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "justification-of-coercion", "name": "Justification of coercion", "description": "Distinguishes objectives from the means endorsed to achieve them.", "findings": [ { "id": "endorsed-means-and-limits", "name": "Endorsed means and limits", "description": "Record whether coercion or violence is rejected, accepted conditionally or endorsed, including stated targets and limits.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which coercive or violent means are explicitly endorsed or rejected, against whom, and under what stated conditions?", "kind": "definition", "id": "endorsed-means-and-limits-q01" }, { "text": "What establishes endorsement rather than description, fictional speech, quotation or an interpretation imposed by an opponent?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "endorsed-means-and-limits-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-attribution", "name": "Evidence and attribution", "description": "Connects extremism claims to contextualized evidence at the correct level of attribution.", "rationale": "Misquotation, circular allegations and generalization from association can produce a classification unsupported by the subject's actual commitments or conduct.", "layers": [ { "id": "expression-in-context", "name": "Expression in context", "description": "Establishes authorship, meaning and evidential independence of relevant expressions.", "findings": [ { "id": "contextualized-expression", "name": "Contextualized expression", "description": "Record the original expression, surrounding exchange, authorship confidence and any material translation or interpretation choices.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can the expression be traced to an authentic original with enough context to assess authorship, audience, irony and quotation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contextualized-expression-q01" }, { "text": "Which observations independently corroborate the interpretation, and which merely repeat the same allegation or excerpt?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "contextualized-expression-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "individual-and-collective-reach", "name": "Individual and collective reach", "description": "Controls movement between claims about statements, members, leaders and collectives.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-attribution-level", "name": "Supported attribution level", "description": "Record whose position is evidenced and whether a collective adopted, tolerated, rejected or disputed it.", "questions": [ { "text": "What supports attribution to the individual, faction, leadership or whole organization rather than to an associated person alone?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "supported-attribution-level-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows formal adoption, implementation, internal dissent, repudiation or sanctions concerning the position?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-attribution-level-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conduct-and-change", "name": "Conduct and change", "description": "Separates attributed commitments from conduct and tracks changes without assuming an inevitable escalation sequence.", "rationale": "An ideological classification alone cannot establish preparation for harm, and a historical assessment may no longer describe the subject.", "layers": [ { "id": "belief-to-conduct-distinction", "name": "Belief to conduct distinction", "description": "Records supported connections and gaps between expression, mobilization and action.", "findings": [ { "id": "observed-conduct-and-threat-evidence", "name": "Observed conduct and threat evidence", "description": "Record actual advocacy, intimidation, preparation or violence separately from beliefs and from any inferred future threat.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which acts are directly evidenced, and which connections between beliefs, advocacy, preparation and action remain inferred?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "observed-conduct-and-threat-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Is there independently supported evidence of intent, capability, a target or timing that requires a separate threat assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "observed-conduct-and-threat-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "persistence-and-revision", "name": "Persistence and revision", "description": "Tracks continuity, internal variation and evidence that changes the assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "time-bounded-trajectory", "name": "Time-bounded trajectory", "description": "Record changes in commitments and conduct, distinguishing ideological moderation from withdrawal from particular activities.", "questions": [ { "text": "Across what period and comparable observations has the subject intensified, moderated, remained stable or diverged internally?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "time-bounded-trajectory-q01" }, { "text": "Does new evidence establish changed beliefs, cessation of harmful conduct, a public retraction or only a change in presentation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "time-bounded-trajectory-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-contestability", "name": "Response and contestability", "description": "Connects the assessment to authorized action while preserving correction, challenge and review.", "rationale": "The extremism label must not substitute for the evidence and authority required to justify a consequential response.", "layers": [ { "id": "grounds-for-response", "name": "Grounds for response", "description": "Identifies the specific concern, governing authority and proportionate response options.", "findings": [ { "id": "action-specific-justification", "name": "Action-specific justification", "description": "Record why a proposed response follows from supported evidence and applicable authority, including whether uncertainty requires further inquiry.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific conduct, credible threat or applicable rule justifies the proposed response beyond the extremism label itself?", "kind": "action", "id": "action-specific-justification-q01" }, { "text": "Which response is proportionate to the evidenced concern, lies within the agent's authority and requires human review before implementation?", "kind": "action", "id": "action-specific-justification-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "challenge-and-expiry", "name": "Challenge and expiry", "description": "Makes the attribution revisable and limits continued reliance on stale or disproven evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "review-and-correction-conditions", "name": "Review and correction conditions", "description": "Record how the subject or a reviewer can challenge the attribution and what triggers narrowing, withdrawal or renewed assessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "What counterevidence, contextual correction or framework challenge would narrow or overturn this assessment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "review-and-correction-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "When must the assessment be reviewed, and how will a correction reach decisions or records that relied on it?", "kind": "action", "id": "review-and-correction-conditions-q02" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which definitions should Vercy support, and can any criteria serve across contexts without concealing substantive disagreement about extremism?", "How should the model distinguish opposition to a prevailing political order from opposition to equal standing or pluralism when the prevailing order is itself exclusionary?", "What evidence thresholds are appropriate for attributing extremism to a statement, an individual or an entire organization?", "Which indicators of changing commitments or conduct have sufficient empirical support to inform reassessment without implying inevitable progression toward violence?", "How should framework-specific legal designations, disputed translations and politically motivated allegations be represented without converting authority or repetition into evidential certainty?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 10, "questions": 20 } }, "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 extremism, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to assess a claim of extremism against an explicit definition, distinguish beliefs from conduct and threats, and identify evidence-supported, proportionate next steps.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: Jewish extremism, Fulani extremism in Nigeria, anti-institutional extremism, Domestic Extremism, extremist formation, nihilistic violent extremism, political extremism, anti-establishment extremism, online extremism, violent extremism, religious extremism, ultranationalism.", "18 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 65 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a extremism, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "Jewish extremism", "Fulani extremism in Nigeria", "anti-institutional extremism", "Domestic Extremism", "extremist formation", "nihilistic violent extremism", "political extremism", "anti-establishment extremism", "online extremism", "violent extremism", "religious extremism", "ultranationalism" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 65 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 18 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 extremism from another, and a extremism 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 extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a extremism 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 extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism, 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 extremism and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a extremism 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 extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism 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 extremism?", "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 extremism?", "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 extremism 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 extremism and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 extremism is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a extremism, 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 extremism, 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 extremism 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 } } } }