{ "model": { "rank": 5275, "code": "thing-q484284", "model_id": "vr.tr.deductive-reasoning", "name": "deductive reasoning", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise purported deductive reasoning, assess whether its conclusions follow under stated assumptions and inference rules, and determine what verification or revision is needed.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q484284/", "tier": 2, "score": 68, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "natural deduction", "transcendental deduction" ], "aliasCount": 2, "merged": 2, "knownIn": 68, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q484284", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q484284", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T22:02:04Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.8, "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: 01a08830-50a7-7e12-b156-d4375cfd6d4a\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: deductive reasoning\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: ", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 61.6, "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: 01a08830-5096-71b2-b022-d21da34e4135\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: deductive reasoning\nRegistry id: vr.tr.deductive-reasoning\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q484284", "registryId": "vr.tr.deductive-reasoning", "name": "deductive reasoning", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q484284/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.deductive-reasoning", "name": "deductive reasoning", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise purported deductive reasoning, assess whether its conclusions follow under stated assumptions and inference rules, and determine what verification or revision is needed.", "definition": "Deductive reasoning is reasoning intended to establish that a conclusion follows necessarily from premises, with validity requiring that no interpretation allowed by the governing logic makes the premises true and the conclusion false.", "scope_statement": "This model owns deductive reasoning as an activity that presents a conclusion as necessitated by premises under a specified consequence relation, including unsuccessful attempts, formal derivations, and informal arguments reconstructed for assessment.", "in_scope": [ "Premises, conclusions, intermediate claims, and their inferential dependencies", "The intended necessity of the inference and the logical framework used to assess it", "Translation of informal reasoning into an explicit, assessable argument", "Validity, premise acceptability, soundness, and verification status as separate assessments", "Proof construction, counterexample testing, and repair of failed deductions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Inductive generalisation and probabilistic support that do not claim necessity", "Abductive selection of an explanation on grounds such as plausibility or simplicity", "The independent empirical investigation needed to establish factual premises", "Logical systems as mathematical objects beyond their role in governing a reasoning episode", "Persuasive effectiveness and rhetorical quality independent of inferential support", "General cognitive ability beyond its manifestation in a particular deductive task" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Ask whether the conclusion is presented as unavoidable if the premises hold; a merely probable conclusion indicates a different inferential aim.", "Try to construct an admissible interpretation in which all premises hold but the conclusion fails; success defeats validity under the selected semantics.", "Separate a purported deduction from a valid deduction: an invalid argument can still be an attempt to reason deductively.", "Check whether the conclusion follows from the premises rather than merely agreeing with observed outcomes or providing a good explanation.", "Identify the governing logic before applying familiar tests: classical, intuitionistic, modal, and paraconsistent frameworks can license different inferences." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Inferential commitment", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "necessity explicitly claimed | necessity inferred from context | mixed inferential aims | unclear", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes deductive intent from inductive or abductive support without assuming that the inference succeeds." }, { "name": "Governing consequence relation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "named logic, proof calculus, semantics, and any task-specific restrictions", "why_it_matters": "An assessment of consequence requires explicit standards for which inferences or interpretations are admissible." }, { "name": "Argument reconstruction status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unreconstructed | explicit | competing reconstructions | unresolved ambiguity", "why_it_matters": "Formal assessment can misrepresent the original reasoning when translation choices remain hidden." }, { "name": "Premise epistemic standing", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "per premise: stipulated | independently supported | disputed | refuted | unknown", "why_it_matters": "A successful derivation does not establish the truth of its starting claims." }, { "name": "Validity assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unchecked | supported by derivation | semantically established | refuted by counterinterpretation | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Records the evidence for an inferential judgment without treating search failure as invalidity." }, { "name": "Soundness assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "established relative to recorded standards | defeated | conditional | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Keeps validity and premise truth separate; establishing soundness requires both." }, { "name": "Assumption dependency", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "conclusion or intermediate claim linked to the premises and temporary assumptions it uses", "why_it_matters": "Supports review when a premise changes and detects assumptions that were never discharged." }, { "name": "Derivation length", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "number of inference steps in a specified representation", "why_it_matters": "Helps estimate inspection effort, while remaining dependent on the calculus and level of detail." } ], "affordances": [ "Reconstruct an informal deduction while exposing omitted premises and alternative readings.", "Check individual inference steps and the final consequence claim under a declared logic.", "Search for a counterinterpretation that demonstrates invalidity.", "Explain which assumptions a conclusion depends on and which remain unverified.", "Repair an argument by correcting a step, adding an explicitly acknowledged premise, or weakening the conclusion.", "Report a verified conditional result without overstating the truth of its premises." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "deductive-intent-and-boundaries", "name": "Deductive intent and boundaries", "description": "Identify the kind of support the reasoning claims and distinguish that claim from its success.", "rationale": "Necessity, validity, and a reasoner's intention are related but distinct grounds for classifying reasoning as deductive.", "layers": [ { "id": "claimed-necessity", "name": "Claimed necessity", "description": "Record how the conclusion is presented as following from its premises.", "findings": [ { "id": "necessity-commitment", "name": "Necessity commitment", "description": "Capture whether the argument claims that accepting its premises requires accepting its conclusion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the reasoner claim necessity, probability, explanatory superiority, or some combination?", "kind": "definition", "id": "necessity-commitment-q01" }, { "text": "Which wording or task context supports attributing a deductive intention?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "necessity-commitment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-conventions", "name": "Classification conventions", "description": "Make explicit whether deductiveness is classified by intention, consequence, or another stated account.", "findings": [ { "id": "attempt-versus-achievement", "name": "Attempt versus achievement", "description": "Allow an unsuccessful deductive attempt to be represented without labelling its inference valid.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the adopted account call an invalid attempt deductive, or reserve that term for a successful consequence relation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attempt-versus-achievement-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts of a mixed argument are deductions, and which supply inductive or abductive support?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attempt-versus-achievement-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "argument-reconstruction", "name": "Argument reconstruction", "description": "Expose the claims, meanings, and implicit assumptions needed to assess an argument.", "rationale": "A formally valid reconstruction is useful only when it preserves the relevant meaning of the reasoning being assessed.", "layers": [ { "id": "premises-and-target", "name": "Premises and target", "description": "Distinguish starting claims, intermediate results, and the conclusion being tested.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-argument-map", "name": "Explicit argument map", "description": "Represent the argument's inferential structure and mark premises supplied during reconstruction.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exact conclusion is claimed, and which statements are offered as its premises?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-argument-map-q01" }, { "text": "Which premises were stated by the reasoner and which were added by the interpreter?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "explicit-argument-map-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "meaning-and-formalisation", "name": "Meaning and formalisation", "description": "Track choices about quantification, scope, identity, conditionals, and domain restrictions.", "findings": [ { "id": "translation-fidelity", "name": "Translation fidelity", "description": "Make potentially consequential differences between the original language and its formal representation inspectable.", "questions": [ { "text": "How are quantifier scope, conditional meaning, and the domain of discourse represented?", "kind": "definition", "id": "translation-fidelity-q01" }, { "text": "Could a plausible alternative reading change whether the conclusion follows?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "translation-fidelity-q02" }, { "text": "Which ambiguity must be resolved before a verdict applies to the original argument?", "kind": "action", "id": "translation-fidelity-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "logical-framework-and-derivation", "name": "Logical framework and derivation", "description": "Specify the standards of consequence and inspect how the conclusion is derived.", "rationale": "Deductive assessment depends on the selected logic and on correct application of its rules.", "layers": [ { "id": "consequence-standard", "name": "Consequence standard", "description": "Record the proof rules, semantics, and framework choices that govern assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "declared-logical-commitments", "name": "Declared logical commitments", "description": "Expose commitments that affect which conclusions follow, including treatment of contradiction and excluded middle.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which logic and consequence relation govern this argument, and why are they appropriate to the task?", "kind": "definition", "id": "declared-logical-commitments-q01" }, { "text": "Does any inference depend on a principle such as excluded middle, double-negation elimination, or explosion?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "declared-logical-commitments-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "rule-and-assumption-control", "name": "Rule and assumption control", "description": "Check inference steps, rule side conditions, and the scope of temporary assumptions.", "findings": [ { "id": "licensed-inference-chain", "name": "Licensed inference chain", "description": "Require each asserted derivation step to identify its supporting claims and an applicable inference rule.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rule licenses each step, and are its substitution, variable, and scope conditions satisfied?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "licensed-inference-chain-q01" }, { "text": "Have temporary assumptions been discharged correctly, or does the conclusion still depend on them?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "licensed-inference-chain-q02" }, { "text": "Which omitted step must be expanded to make the derivation checkable?", "kind": "action", "id": "licensed-inference-chain-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "validity-and-premise-standing", "name": "Validity and premise standing", "description": "Assess consequence independently from the truth or acceptability of starting claims.", "rationale": "True conclusions can arise from invalid arguments, and valid arguments can start from false premises.", "layers": [ { "id": "validity-evidence", "name": "Validity evidence", "description": "Record derivations, semantic checks, counterinterpretations, and inconclusive searches.", "findings": [ { "id": "verification-or-counterinterpretation", "name": "Verification or counterinterpretation", "description": "Tie a validity verdict to inspectable evidence within the declared framework.", "questions": [ { "text": "What derivation or semantic check establishes the claimed consequence?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "verification-or-counterinterpretation-q01" }, { "text": "Is there an admissible interpretation that satisfies the premises but not the conclusion?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "verification-or-counterinterpretation-q02" }, { "text": "Did verification settle the issue, or merely reach a time, resource, or method limit?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "verification-or-counterinterpretation-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "truth-and-consistency", "name": "Truth and consistency", "description": "Track premise support and contradictions separately from inferential correctness.", "findings": [ { "id": "soundness-conditions", "name": "Soundness conditions", "description": "Record what warrants the premises and whether the combined premise set creates framework-specific problems.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which premises are established as true, merely stipulated, disputed, or unknown?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "soundness-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "Are the premises jointly satisfiable under the selected semantics, and how does the selected logic treat any contradiction?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "soundness-conditions-q02" }, { "text": "What additional premise evidence is needed before the argument can be judged sound?", "kind": "action", "id": "soundness-conditions-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "revision-and-responsible-use", "name": "Revision and responsible use", "description": "Turn assessment into targeted repairs and appropriately qualified downstream conclusions.", "rationale": "Agents need to know which claims survive a change and how to communicate the exact reach of a deduction.", "layers": [ { "id": "deduction-repair", "name": "Deduction repair", "description": "Locate defects and distinguish correcting an inference from changing the argument's commitments.", "findings": [ { "id": "minimal-justified-revision", "name": "Minimal justified revision", "description": "Identify repairs while making added premises and weakened conclusions explicit.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the failure arise from an invalid step, an ambiguous expression, or an unsupported premise?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "minimal-justified-revision-q01" }, { "text": "Can the argument be repaired by a licensed step or weaker conclusion, and what new commitment would an added premise introduce?", "kind": "action", "id": "minimal-justified-revision-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "conditional-use-and-update", "name": "Conditional use and update", "description": "Preserve assumption dependencies when reporting results or incorporating revised premises.", "findings": [ { "id": "conclusion-use-conditions", "name": "Conclusion use conditions", "description": "Connect downstream use to the verified conclusion, its governing framework, and its outstanding assumptions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Should the result be reported as an established claim, a conditional consequence, or an unresolved argument?", "kind": "action", "id": "conclusion-use-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "If a premise is withdrawn or changed, which derivations require reassessment and which have independent support?", "kind": "action", "id": "conclusion-use-conditions-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": [ "The definition covers the reasoning activity, including attempts that fail, and distinguishes it from deductive validity.", "Accounts differ over whether deductiveness is identified by intended necessity, actual consequence or formal structure; classical and nonclassical logics also license different inferences.", "The listed kinds overlap, and task accuracy and response time measure performance under particular conditions rather than a universal quantity of deductive ability." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of deductive reasoning 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": [ "Categorical syllogistic reasoning", "Propositional reasoning", "Quantificational reasoning", "Relational reasoning", "Modal deductive reasoning" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of deductive reasoning 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": [ "Constructing mathematical proofs from definitions, axioms and established results.", "Verifying software and hardware against formal specifications.", "Deriving consequences of scientific theories together with auxiliary assumptions.", "Automating theorem proving and checking formally represented arguments.", "Applying explicit rules to cases whose relevant conditions have been established." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of deductive reasoning this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Accuracy on deductive reasoning tasks", "typical_range": "0-100; interpretation depends on task difficulty, response format and scoring", "unit": "percent correct" }, { "quantity": "Response time on deductive reasoning tasks", "typical_range": "No universal range; depends on task complexity and experimental procedure", "unit": "milliseconds or seconds" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of deductive reasoning 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 validity with soundness: a valid argument can have false premises; soundness also requires true premises.", "Affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent.", "Equivocating between meanings or mishandling quantifier scope.", "Accepting a believable conclusion as evidence that an inference is valid.", "Applying a formal deduction to a practical situation without checking whether its premises and modelling assumptions hold." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of deductive reasoning 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": "Inductive reasoning", "difference": "Inductive support can leave the conclusion false even when the premises are true; valid deduction excludes that possibility under the governing logic." }, { "name": "Abductive reasoning", "difference": "Abduction proposes an explanation for observations; deduction derives consequences that must follow from its premises." }, { "name": "Logical consequence", "difference": "Logical consequence is a relation between premises and conclusions; deductive reasoning is an activity intended to track that relation." }, { "name": "Formal proof", "difference": "A formal proof records steps licensed by a specified calculus; deductive reasoning can also be informal or contain unsuccessful attempts." }, { "name": "Mathematical induction", "difference": "Despite its name, mathematical induction is a deductive proof method using a base case and an inductive step under an appropriate induction principle." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of deductive reasoning this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which surveyed philosophical and psychological accounts should anchor the distinction between deductive intention and deductive validity?", "How should the model assess natural-language deductions whose conditional or modal meanings resist a single agreed formalisation?", "What task-specific evidence should justify selecting classical, intuitionistic, relevant, paraconsistent, or another consequence relation?", "What verification standard should distinguish a plausible proof sketch, an expert-checked derivation, and a machine-checked proof?", "How should empirical studies of human deduction be represented without conflating task accuracy, logical competence, and performance under cognitive constraints?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 30 } }, "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 deductive reasoning, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise purported deductive reasoning, assess whether its conclusions follow under stated assumptions and inference rules, and determine what verification or revision is needed.", "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: natural deduction, transcendental deduction.", "2 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 68 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 deductive reasoning, 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": [ "natural deduction", "transcendental deduction" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 68 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 2 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one deductive reasoning from another, and a deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning?", "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 deductive reasoning?", "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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 deductive reasoning is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning, 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 deductive reasoning 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 } } } }