{ "model": { "rank": 4102, "code": "thing-q480498", "model_id": "vr.tr.impeachment", "name": "impeachment", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise an impeachment proceeding, establish its jurisdiction-specific stage and authority, and identify procedurally available next actions without treating an accusation as a finding of guilt or removal.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.MED", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q480498/", "tier": 2, "score": 78, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "Impeachment in South Africa", "Impeachment in the Philippines", "impeachment in the United States", "Impeachment in Brazil", "Impeachment in the United Kingdom", "Impeachment in Norway", "impeachment in Russia", "Impeachment in Ukraine", "United States presidential impeachment" ], "aliasCount": 9, "merged": 9, "knownIn": 78, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.impeachment", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q480498", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q480498", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T19:28:56Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 20.8, "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: 01a087a4-17c7-7223-8099-022d68807537\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: impeachment\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 004: 1001 regi", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 63.9, "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: 01a087a4-17c2-72b1-903b-31c82a4379ec\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: impeachment\nRegistry id: vr.tr.impeachment\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\n" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q480498", "registryId": "vr.tr.impeachment", "name": "impeachment", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q480498/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.impeachment", "name": "impeachment", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise an impeachment proceeding, establish its jurisdiction-specific stage and authority, and identify procedurally available next actions without treating an accusation as a finding of guilt or removal.", "definition": "Impeachment is a constitutional procedure for formally accusing a public officeholder of specified misconduct, ordinarily initiating proceedings that may lead to removal or other constitutionally prescribed consequences.", "scope_statement": "This model owns impeachment as a formal constitutional or public-law accountability process concerning an officeholder, including the distinction between bringing charges and adjudicating them where applicable; it does not assume that the registry placement INF / INF.MED makes impeachment a creative work or that one jurisdiction's procedure applies universally.", "in_scope": [ "The jurisdiction, governing rules, offices and persons eligible for impeachment", "Alleged grounds, formal charges and their supporting procedural records", "Institutions authorised to initiate, investigate, charge and adjudicate", "Procedural stages, votes, decisions and opportunities to respond", "Disposition, authorised consequences and unresolved procedural questions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Ordinary criminal prosecution and criminal penalties", "Votes of no confidence, recall elections and other independent removal mechanisms", "General electoral contests, succession systems and office administration", "Media coverage, political commentary and creative works about impeachment", "Witness impeachment as a challenge to credibility in evidentiary proceedings" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The proceeding invokes a jurisdiction's formal impeachment authority concerning an eligible officeholder, rather than merely demanding resignation.", "Its grounds and institutional route must be identified from applicable rules; political opposition alone does not establish that an impeachment proceeding exists.", "An allegation, an adopted charge and an adjudicated finding are separately identifiable acts whose relationship depends on the jurisdiction.", "Removal, disqualification or another consequence requires its own recorded legal basis and triggering decision; the label 'impeached' alone does not establish the consequence.", "The target is an officeholder's accountability under the relevant public-law mechanism, rather than a witness's credibility or a publication about that mechanism." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Governing jurisdiction and rule version", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Jurisdiction linked to applicable constitutional provisions, legislation and procedural rules with effective dates", "why_it_matters": "Determines eligibility, grounds, institutional powers and available actions." }, { "name": "Subject and office eligibility", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Person, office, tenure dates and eligibility determination or unresolved status", "why_it_matters": "Prevents assumptions that every official or former official is subject to the same process." }, { "name": "Grounds invoked", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Exact jurisdiction-specific grounds, with interpretations and disputes recorded separately", "why_it_matters": "Connects each charge to an asserted basis for impeachment without importing another system's terminology." }, { "name": "Procedural stage", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Jurisdiction-specific stage, mapped where applicable to proposed, initiated, investigating, formally charged, adjudicating, concluded or disputed", "why_it_matters": "Identifies what has actually happened and which transitions may follow." }, { "name": "Institutional authority", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Competent bodies and their initiation, investigation, charging, adjudication and review powers", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes authorised procedural acts from statements by actors without the relevant power." }, { "name": "Decision threshold and recorded vote", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Required rule and denominator; counts of affirmative, negative, abstaining, absent and recused members where recorded", "why_it_matters": "Supports checking a decision against the applicable quorum and voting requirements." }, { "name": "Charge disposition", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Pending, withdrawn, dismissed, sustained, not sustained or the jurisdiction's exact disposition", "why_it_matters": "Preserves separate outcomes where a proceeding contains multiple charges." }, { "name": "Operative consequences", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Recorded consequence, legal trigger, effective date and any stay or unresolved challenge", "why_it_matters": "Separates political descriptions of an outcome from its operative effect." } ], "affordances": [ "Determine whether a reported event is an impeachment proposal, formal procedural act, adjudication or commentary.", "Trace each charge to its alleged conduct, invoked ground and supporting official record.", "Check whether a recorded procedural transition satisfies identified authority, notice, quorum and voting requirements.", "Identify the next procedurally available actions and the institutions or participants authorised to take them.", "Summarise charge-specific outcomes and operative consequences while preserving unresolved disputes." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "constitutional-basis-and-boundaries", "name": "Constitutional basis and boundaries", "description": "Establishes which impeachment mechanism the proceeding invokes and whom it can reach.", "rationale": "The term does not establish a universal procedure, eligible office or removal power.", "layers": [ { "id": "governing-mechanism", "name": "Governing mechanism", "description": "Identifies the legal meaning and authority of impeachment in the relevant system.", "findings": [ { "id": "jurisdiction-specific-meaning", "name": "Jurisdiction-specific meaning", "description": "Record whether local usage names the charging act, the wider proceeding or another defined procedural step.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does impeachment denote under this jurisdiction's governing provisions?", "kind": "definition", "id": "jurisdiction-specific-meaning-q01" }, { "text": "Which authoritative texts and effective versions establish the mechanism?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "jurisdiction-specific-meaning-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "eligible-subjects", "name": "Eligible subjects", "description": "Defines the proceeding's reach over offices and periods of service.", "findings": [ { "id": "office-and-tenure-reach", "name": "Office and tenure reach", "description": "Record the subject's office and tenure alongside the basis for eligibility, including any dispute concerning former officeholders.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which provision makes this officeholder eligible for the invoked process?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "office-and-tenure-reach-q01" }, { "text": "Does resignation, dismissal or expiry of the term affect authority to continue this proceeding?", "kind": "action", "id": "office-and-tenure-reach-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "grounds-and-formal-charges", "name": "Grounds and formal charges", "description": "Connects alleged conduct to impeachment grounds and distinguishes proposals from adopted charges.", "rationale": "An agent must not convert a political allegation into a formal charge or an established fact.", "layers": [ { "id": "grounds-and-allegations", "name": "Grounds and allegations", "description": "Separates governing grounds from the conduct alleged to satisfy them.", "findings": [ { "id": "conduct-to-ground-mapping", "name": "Conduct-to-ground mapping", "description": "Record each alleged act or omission, the ground invoked and any unresolved interpretation connecting them.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific conduct is alleged, and which impeachment ground is invoked for it?", "kind": "definition", "id": "conduct-to-ground-mapping-q01" }, { "text": "Which aspects remain allegations, and which have been established by an identified decision?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conduct-to-ground-mapping-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "charge-adoption-and-versioning", "name": "Charge adoption and versioning", "description": "Tracks formal charge texts and the acts that introduce, amend or adopt them.", "findings": [ { "id": "operative-charge-text", "name": "Operative charge text", "description": "Identify the operative articles or equivalent charges without merging rejected proposals or superseded wording into them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which official record establishes the current text and adoption status of each charge?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "operative-charge-text-q01" }, { "text": "Who may amend, withdraw or add charges at the current stage, and through what procedure?", "kind": "action", "id": "operative-charge-text-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutional-route-and-decisions", "name": "Institutional route and decisions", "description": "Maps competent bodies, procedural stages and valid decision conditions.", "rationale": "Impeachment status depends on authorised acts and applicable thresholds, not merely on announcements.", "layers": [ { "id": "powers-and-stage-transitions", "name": "Powers and stage transitions", "description": "Connects each stage to the body empowered to conduct or conclude it.", "findings": [ { "id": "authorised-procedural-transition", "name": "Authorised procedural transition", "description": "Record the initiating instrument, competent body and event required to move to the next stage.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which bodies may initiate, investigate, adopt charges and adjudicate in this proceeding?", "kind": "definition", "id": "authorised-procedural-transition-q01" }, { "text": "What authorised act establishes the current stage, and what act could change it?", "kind": "action", "id": "authorised-procedural-transition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "quorum-votes-and-timing", "name": "Quorum, votes and timing", "description": "Captures the numerical and temporal conditions attached to procedural decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "decision-validity-conditions", "name": "Decision validity conditions", "description": "Record the threshold, denominator, quorum and deadlines applicable to each decision rather than assigning one threshold to the entire process.", "questions": [ { "text": "What quorum, voting denominator and threshold govern this particular decision?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "decision-validity-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "What do the official tally and dated procedural record show about satisfaction of those requirements?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "decision-validity-conditions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "record-response-and-adjudication", "name": "Record, response and adjudication", "description": "Tracks the material considered, the officeholder's procedural participation and the rules for deciding charges.", "rationale": "The model must distinguish submitted material, contested assertions and adjudicated conclusions.", "layers": [ { "id": "evidentiary-and-procedural-record", "name": "Evidentiary and procedural record", "description": "Preserves the origin and procedural treatment of material relevant to each charge.", "findings": [ { "id": "material-and-treatment", "name": "Material and treatment", "description": "Link testimony, documents and other material to charges and record whether the deciding body received, excluded or disputed them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which identifiable records support or contest each charge, and where were they obtained?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "material-and-treatment-q01" }, { "text": "How did the competent body treat this material, and what authenticity or access disputes remain?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "material-and-treatment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-decision-rules", "name": "Response and decision rules", "description": "Identifies applicable participation rights and adjudicative requirements without presuming criminal-trial rules.", "findings": [ { "id": "applicable-hearing-and-proof-rules", "name": "Applicable hearing and proof rules", "description": "Record notice, representation, response opportunities and any prescribed standard or burden for deciding charges.", "questions": [ { "text": "What opportunities to receive notice, answer charges and challenge material do the applicable rules provide?", "kind": "action", "id": "applicable-hearing-and-proof-rules-q01" }, { "text": "Is a standard or burden of proof prescribed, and which authority establishes it or leaves it unresolved?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "applicable-hearing-and-proof-rules-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "disposition-and-operative-effects", "name": "Disposition and operative effects", "description": "Separates charge outcomes, consequences and subsequent challenges or proceedings.", "rationale": "A proceeding's conclusion does not by itself identify removal, future eligibility or liability elsewhere.", "layers": [ { "id": "charge-outcomes-and-consequences", "name": "Charge outcomes and consequences", "description": "Records what was decided and which consequences legally follow.", "findings": [ { "id": "outcome-to-effect-link", "name": "Outcome-to-effect link", "description": "Associate each disposition with its decision record and separately establish any removal, suspension, disqualification or other authorised effect.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exact disposition was entered for each charge, and by which competent body?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "outcome-to-effect-link-q01" }, { "text": "Which consequences follow automatically, which require another decision, and when do they take effect?", "kind": "action", "id": "outcome-to-effect-link-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "finality-and-adjacent-proceedings", "name": "Finality and adjacent proceedings", "description": "Tracks challenges and links to distinct proceedings without importing their outcomes.", "findings": [ { "id": "review-and-independent-liability", "name": "Review and independent liability", "description": "Record available or disputed review routes and any legally established relationship to separate criminal, civil or administrative proceedings.", "questions": [ { "text": "What route, if any, permits review or challenge, and does a pending challenge affect the decision's operation?", "kind": "action", "id": "review-and-independent-liability-q01" }, { "text": "What authority establishes whether this disposition affects a separate proceeding concerning the same conduct?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "review-and-independent-liability-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This describes the constitutional accountability procedure; the supplied INF.MED domain and creative-work batch context appear inconsistent with that sense and require registry verification.", "The separate evidentiary sense, impeachment of a witness's credibility, is not covered.", "Constitutional references are recalled rather than researched; a researcher should verify current jurisdiction-specific provisions, procedures and terminology." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of impeachment this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Presidential impeachment", "Judicial impeachment", "Impeachment of ministers or other eligible public officials" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of impeachment 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 States Constitution, Articles I and II: establishes federal impeachment powers, grounds and consequences.", "Constitution of India, Article 61: provides for impeachment of the President for violation of the Constitution.", "Constitution of Brazil, Articles 51, 52 and 85: addresses presidential responsibility offences and the respective roles of the Chamber of Deputies and Federal Senate." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of impeachment 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": [ "Holding eligible public officeholders accountable for constitutionally specified misconduct.", "Initiating formal proceedings that can result in removal from office.", "Providing a constitutional check on executive or judicial officeholders." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of impeachment 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": [ "Confusing formal impeachment with conviction or removal from office.", "Treating impeachment as equivalent to a criminal prosecution.", "Using the process for partisan retaliation rather than substantiated constitutional accountability.", "Procedural unfairness or inadequate evidence undermining the legitimacy of proceedings.", "Applying one jurisdiction's eligibility rules, grounds or voting thresholds to another." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of impeachment 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": [ "In the United States federal system, the House of Representatives impeaches and the Senate tries impeachments; impeachment alone does not remove an official.", "In India, either house of Parliament can initiate presidential impeachment proceedings under the constitutional procedure.", "Jurisdictions differ in eligible offices, grounds, investigating and adjudicating bodies, voting thresholds and available consequences." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of impeachment 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": "Removal from office", "difference": "Removal ends an officeholder's tenure; impeachment is a procedure that may precede removal without necessarily producing it." }, { "name": "Vote of no confidence", "difference": "A no-confidence vote tests political support for a government rather than necessarily alleging constitutionally specified misconduct." }, { "name": "Criminal prosecution", "difference": "Criminal prosecution determines criminal liability; impeachment concerns constitutional accountability and eligibility to hold office." }, { "name": "Recall election", "difference": "Recall allows voters to decide whether an officeholder should leave office before the term ends." }, { "name": "Censure", "difference": "Censure expresses formal condemnation and does not itself constitute impeachment or necessarily remove the officeholder." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of impeachment this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does vr.tr.impeachment intend the public-law accountability mechanism, and what explains its INF / INF.MED placement and inclusion among creative forms?", "Does an existing Vercy world model already cover this concept and therefore provide the authoritative model to link?", "Which jurisdictions must the model initially support, and how should their different meanings of impeachment map to shared procedural stages?", "For those jurisdictions, what authoritative materials settle disputed grounds, former-officeholder eligibility, adjudicative standards and reviewability?", "Should an individual model instance represent the whole proceeding or the formal charging act, with adjudication linked as a distinct process where the jurisdiction separates them?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "work, medium or creative form", "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 impeachment, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise an impeachment proceeding, establish its jurisdiction-specific stage and authority, and identify procedurally available next actions without treating an accusation as a finding of guilt or removal.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted", "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: Impeachment in South Africa, Impeachment in the Philippines, impeachment in the United States, Impeachment in Brazil, Impeachment in the United Kingdom, Impeachment in Norway, impeachment in Russia, Impeachment in Ukraine, United States presidential impeachment.", "9 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 78 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a impeachment, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "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": [ "read it and act on what it says", "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "What is seen is a copy or a performance, not the work. Recognising the work means recognising the content through whatever is carrying it." ], "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": [ "Impeachment in South Africa", "Impeachment in the Philippines", "impeachment in the United States", "Impeachment in Brazil", "Impeachment in the United Kingdom", "Impeachment in Norway", "impeachment in Russia", "Impeachment in Ukraine", "United States presidential impeachment" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 78 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 9 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 impeachment from another, and a impeachment 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 impeachment 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 impeachment from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 impeachment 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 impeachment between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 impeachment, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a impeachment 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a impeachment says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a impeachment contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a impeachment, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a impeachment, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a impeachment is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a impeachment and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a impeachment, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a impeachment, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a impeachment is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "work-and-manifestation", "name": "Work, version and copy", "description": "Which level of impeachment a statement is about.", "rationale": "The work, the edition, the file and the copy in hand are four things; rights and content attach to different ones.", "layers": [ { "id": "levels", "name": "Levels of the thing", "description": "Work, expression, manifestation and item, in plain terms.", "findings": [ { "id": "level-rules", "name": "What belongs at each level", "description": "Which facts hold for the work and which only for one copy.", "questions": [ { "id": "level-rules-q01", "text": "For impeachment, which facts belong to the work itself, which to a version, and which to a single copy?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "level-rules-q02", "text": "What identifier exists at each level, and which one is being cited?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "versions", "name": "Versions, editions and variants", "description": "How versions differ and which is canonical to whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "version-record", "name": "Versions and canonicity", "description": "Differences that matter and who calls one authoritative.", "questions": [ { "id": "version-record-q01", "text": "Which versions or editions of impeachment exist, and how do they differ substantively?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "version-record-q02", "text": "Who treats which version as authoritative, and for what purpose?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "authorship-and-rights", "name": "Authorship, rights and permitted use", "description": "Who made impeachment and what may be done with it.", "rationale": "Rights are jurisdictional, time-limited and attached to a level, and an agent that ignores that will copy what it may not.", "layers": [ { "id": "authorship", "name": "Authorship and contribution", "description": "Who contributed what, and in what capacity.", "findings": [ { "id": "contribution-record", "name": "Contributors and roles", "description": "The people and bodies behind it, with their roles.", "questions": [ { "id": "contribution-record-q01", "text": "Who authored or contributed to impeachment, in what roles, and how is that attested?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "contribution-record-q02", "text": "Where authorship is disputed or anonymous, what is recorded instead?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "rights", "name": "Rights and permissions", "description": "Which rights subsist, where, until when, and what they permit.", "findings": [ { "id": "rights-record", "name": "Rights, term and permitted acts", "description": "The regime in force and what it allows.", "questions": [ { "id": "rights-record-q01", "text": "What rights subsist in impeachment, in which jurisdictions, and until when?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "rights-record-q02", "text": "Which acts are permitted without further permission, and which must an agent refuse?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a impeachment 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 impeachment and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 impeachment is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a impeachment, 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 impeachment, 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 impeachment 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 } } } }