Cupid's bow
Enable an agent to recognise, describe and compare a Cupid's bow as an upper-lip contour while keeping anatomical observations separate from cosmetic appearance and aesthetic judgments.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 13 findings · 21 questions
Referent and anatomical boundary Establish which sense of Cupid's bow is intended and which upper-lip feature it denotes.
Name and sense
Resolve the anatomical interpretation without treating the registry classification as proof.
Intended referent
Record evidence for the intended sense; the upper-lip interpretation remains provisional until registry provenance is checked.
- Does the originating registry record identify the upper-lip contour, Cupid's weapon or another referent? definition
- Which originating identifier, description or reference supports that interpretation? provenance
Border and neighbours
Locate the contour relative to the vermilion border, philtrum and mouth opening.
Owned contour segment
Specify the central upper-lip border segment under discussion and distinguish it from nearby surfaces, ridges and openings.
- Which endpoints delimit Cupid's bow in the anatomical convention being used? boundary
- Does the annotation follow the vermilion border rather than the philtral ridges or the line between the lips? boundary
Bow landmarks and geometry Describe the paired peaks, intervening depression and contour connecting them.
Peak and depression identification
Establish whether the expected contour landmarks can actually be located.
Landmark evidence
Record candidate peak and depression positions with uncertainty, allowing indistinct contours without imposing artificial landmarks.
- Can two peaks and an intervening central depression be independently identified in this observation? measurement
- What rule distinguishes an anatomically shallow contour from landmarks obscured by the image or cosmetics? boundary
Span, depth and correspondence
Operationalise bow geometry using declared coordinates and reference lengths.
Comparable contour measures
Treat span, depression depth and left-right differences as protocol-dependent measurements rather than universal shape categories.
- What are the interpeak span and central depression depth under the stated landmark and scale conventions? measurement
- How are the midline and head orientation established before comparing left and right peak positions? measurement
Contour observation and presentation Separate the observed border from effects of pose, expression, lighting and cosmetic depiction.
Capture conditions
Record the conditions needed to interpret an upper-lip contour observation.
Observation comparability
Assess whether viewing angle, lip posture, scale and visibility support the intended recognition or comparison.
- Were head pose and lip posture sufficiently comparable for the proposed contour comparison? measurement
- Would a frontal, clearly lit observation with relaxed lips resolve the current landmark uncertainty? action
Anatomical and drawn edges
Distinguish anatomical border evidence from lipstick, liner, retouching and illustration.
Outline origin
Identify what produces the visible contour and whether the underlying anatomical border is separately observable.
- Is the visible bow defined by the anatomical border, applied pigment, digital editing or an illustration? provenance
- Can the anatomical and cosmetic outlines be annotated separately, or must their relationship remain unresolved? action
Variation, interpretation and use Support specific contour descriptions and bounded actions without imposing an aesthetic ideal or a diagnosis.
Shape language and preference
Connect contour labels and aesthetic preferences to explicit meanings and their holders.
Attributed contour description
Record how a source or person uses terms such as pronounced, soft or asymmetric, distinguishing measured descriptions from appraisals.
- What observable contour properties does this speaker mean by a pronounced or soft Cupid's bow? definition
- Whose preference or descriptive convention supports the appraisal, and in what context? provenance
Comparison and action limits
Determine which annotations, comparisons and cosmetic representations the evidence supports.
Supported next step
Use contour evidence for description or an explicitly requested representation, while routing diagnostic and procedural questions to neighbouring models.
- Does the available evidence support annotation, comparison or a requested cosmetic depiction, or is another observation needed? action
- Does the request concern contour appearance, or does it require diagnosis or intervention planning beyond this model? boundary
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Cupid's bow this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Cupid's bow this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Typical measurements
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of Cupid's bow this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Cupid's bow this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Cupid's bow this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Cross-cutting context
- Entry kind
- thing
- Plane
- XCT
- Domain
- XCT.QLT
What it is Filled
Cupid's bow is the double-curved central contour of the upper lip's vermilion border, formed by two peaks flanking a midline depression and named for its resemblance to an archer's bow.
In scope
- Identification of the upper-lip border segment called Cupid's bow
- Paired peak and central depression landmarks, including indistinct or unresolvable landmarks
- Contour prominence, curvature and left-right correspondence
- Observation conditions that affect apparent contour
- Differences between anatomical contour and cosmetic or depicted outline
- Attributed terminology and aesthetic judgments about this specific feature
Out of scope
- Cupid's mythological weapon and its symbolic meanings
- Whole-lip anatomy, volume and function
- The philtrum as a complete anatomical structure
- Diagnosis and treatment of congenital or acquired lip conditions
- General facial attractiveness assessment
- Procedural planning for injections, surgery or permanent cosmetics
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to recognise, describe and compare a Cupid's bow as an upper-lip contour while keeping anatomical observations separate from cosmetic appearance and aesthetic judgments.
Distinguishing features Filled
- The candidate feature follows the central upper-lip vermilion border rather than the mouth opening between the lips.
- The defining contour is organised around two lateral peaks and a central depression; poorly resolved landmarks must remain uncertain rather than be forced into that pattern.
- It is a border contour rather than the philtral groove or the vertical ridges above the lip.
- A painted bow-shaped outline is a representation or alteration of apparent contour and does not establish the position of the underlying anatomical border.
- A reference to an archer's weapon or Cupid's iconography belongs to a different sense of the name.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Rate, rank or comment on a person's lips or attractiveness from their images.
- Collect or analyse facial images to identify people without consent.
- Promote cosmetic procedures to a user who has not asked about them.
- Mock people whose lip shape differs, including after cleft lip surgery.
Only with a human decision
- Any advice about cosmetic or reconstructive surgery for a person.
May
- Describe the Cupid's bow as an anatomical feature in neutral terms.
- Explain its relevance to cleft lip repair and facial anatomy from medical sources.
Moral aspects Filled
- Facial features touch identity and self-image; comments on them can hurt.
- Beauty ideals around lips drive pressure toward cosmetic procedures.
Who is affected
- People with cleft lip
- People concerned about their appearance
- Young people
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody: part of the human face; each person's own body is theirs.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- Q125501827 - registry parent class
- Q18534278 - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.cupid-s-bow
- Wikidata: Q474053 (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q474053)
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Referent sense: anatomical contour | cosmetic outline | depicted contour | mythological weapon | unresolved
- Landmark resolvability: both peaks and depression resolved | partially resolved | unresolved
- Interpeak span: millimetres with calibration, or dimensionless ratio to a declared reference length
- Central depression depth: perpendicular distance from the central depression to the line joining the peaks; millimetres or a declared normalised ratio
- Left-right contour correspondence: peak offsets and contour differences relative to a declared midline, in calibrated or normalised coordinates
- Observation configuration: declared head pose, lip posture, viewing angle, lighting and image processing
- Visible outline relationship: visible outline coincides with anatomical border | displaced by cosmetics | depiction only | uncertain
- Contour appraisal: judgment linked to its speaker, terminology, context and reference example
Plane XCT: no invented physical properties.
Recognition optional Filled
- The two peaks and central dip along the top edge of the upper lip, below the groove under the nose.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Resolve whether a reference concerns upper-lip anatomy, a cosmetic outline or another sense of Cupid's bow.
- Annotate the two peaks and central depression with explicit uncertainty.
- Compare contour observations when pose, scale and landmark conventions permit.
- Flag a cosmetic outline that cannot reliably identify the anatomical border.
- Request a clearer or more comparable observation before making a contour claim.
- Record an individual's preferred cosmetic depiction without converting that preference into an anatomical norm.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Poorly performed lip fillers or surgery can distort it and cause lasting harm.
Standards and interfaces not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
No standard, law or official classification directly applies to Cupid's bow as a naturally varying anatomical contour.
Context of use required Filled
- Cupid's bow is encountered when describing the central contour of the human upper lip in anatomy, portraiture and facial assessment.
- It serves as a visible landmark in cosmetic design and reconstructive planning, with natural variation in symmetry and prominence.
Sources Filled
- Wikidata item Q474053: Cupid's bow - identity and sense of the item
- Wikipedia: Cupid's bow - general description of the item
Open questions
- Does the originating registry record confirm the anatomical sense of Cupid's bow despite its XCT / XCT.QLT placement?
- Which anatomical references define the contour's endpoints, and do their definitions include adjacent philtral features?
- Which landmark and measurement protocols have demonstrated reliable Cupid's bow comparisons across observers and capture conditions?
- How should shallow or indistinct contours be described without confusing anatomical variation with insufficient visibility?
- Does an existing Vercy world model already own this concept, requiring a registry link instead of a separate publication?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-q474053/spec.json