{ "model": { "rank": 6799, "code": "thing-q68951", "model_id": "vr.tr.divide-and-rule", "name": "divide and rule", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to a suspected divide-and-rule strategy by recording how divisions among other actors are used to preserve or increase a focal actor's power.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q68951/", "tier": 2, "score": 58, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "salami tactics" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 58, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q68951", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q68951", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T23:31:46Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 16.8, "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: 01a08882-73f8-7032-b717-5276576a64b2\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: divide and rule\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 007: 1001", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 60.5, "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: 01a08882-73e6-7552-89d9-6500d1699fb0\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: divide and rule\nRegistry id: vr.tr.divide-and-rule\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q68951", "registryId": "vr.tr.divide-and-rule", "name": "divide and rule", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q68951/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.divide-and-rule", "name": "divide and rule", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to a suspected divide-and-rule strategy by recording how divisions among other actors are used to preserve or increase a focal actor's power.", "definition": "Divide and rule is a strategy of gaining or maintaining power by creating, reinforcing, or exploiting divisions among other actors so that they are less able to coordinate against the actor exercising power.", "scope_statement": "This model owns divide and rule as an attributed strategy or observed pattern of power maintenance through creating, intensifying or selectively exploiting divisions that hinder collective opposition; it distinguishes evidence of conduct, intention, mechanism and effects.", "in_scope": [ "The focal actor, affected groups and power relationship at issue", "Creation, amplification or selective exploitation of divisions", "Differential treatment, selective alliances and interference with coordination", "Evidence supporting or challenging attribution of a divide-and-rule strategy", "Consequences for collective action, dependence and the focal actor's position", "Responses that reduce divisive incentives or restore independent coordination" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Divide-and-conquer algorithms and technical problem decomposition", "Division of labour without a mechanism of power maintenance through fragmentation", "Conflict or social difference without evidence of strategic exploitation", "General theories of colonialism, authoritarianism or organisational governance", "Persuasion, bargaining and coalition formation considered independently of divisive power maintenance" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify a focal actor whose power could be preserved or increased by reduced coordination among others; disagreement alone does not establish divide and rule.", "Identify conduct that creates, amplifies or selectively exploits a division, rather than merely observing pre-existing differences.", "Specify how the division obstructs joint bargaining, solidarity or opposition, or makes the focal actor indispensable as an intermediary.", "Assess whether differential treatment serves a divisive power mechanism or is better explained by relevant needs, legitimate specialisation or ordinary negotiation.", "Keep an accusation, an inferred strategy and a documented strategy distinct; beneficial consequences for the focal actor do not alone prove intent." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Attribution status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "alleged; under assessment; supported; contested; unsupported", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a politically charged label from being treated as an established description." }, { "name": "Focal power relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "focal actor → affected actors, specifying authority, resource control, coercion or brokerage", "why_it_matters": "Identifies whose position the fragmentation is proposed to benefit and through which dependencies." }, { "name": "Treatment of the division", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "created; amplified; selectively exploited; mixed; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes originating a conflict from making strategic use of an existing one." }, { "name": "Divisive mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "selective rewards; selective sanctions; separate bargains; information separation; rivalry promotion; intermediary dependence; other evidenced mechanism", "why_it_matters": "Connects particular conduct to a proposed reduction in collective leverage." }, { "name": "Cross-group coordination change", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "case-defined indicator and baseline, such as joint actions per month or percentage participating in a shared bargaining forum", "why_it_matters": "Makes claims about fragmentation testable without assuming one universal coordination measure." }, { "name": "Focal actor power change", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "case-defined change in decision control, concessions obtained, resource dependence or tenure, with observation period", "why_it_matters": "Separates attempts to divide others from demonstrated benefits to the actor pursuing them." }, { "name": "Intent evidence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "explicit record; corroborated testimony; behavioural inference; allegation only; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Keeps evidence of deliberate strategy separate from evidence of divisive effects." } ], "affordances": [ "Map which actors are separated and how that separation could sustain another actor's power.", "Compare a divide-and-rule interpretation with alternative explanations of differential treatment or conflict.", "Trace changes in cross-group coordination and dependence against a stated baseline.", "Assess whether an attempted strategy succeeded, failed or produced unintended effects.", "Identify consent-based coordination, transparency and grievance-handling responses.", "Record contested interpretations and specify what evidence would resolve them." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "strategy-boundary-and-attribution", "name": "Strategy boundary and attribution", "description": "Establishes what is being called divide and rule, by whom and with what evidential commitment.", "rationale": "The model must distinguish a strategic mechanism from a rhetorical accusation or any situation involving disagreement.", "layers": [ { "id": "instance-boundary", "name": "Instance boundary", "description": "Bounds the conduct, actors and period under assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "candidate-divide-and-rule-instance", "name": "Candidate divide-and-rule instance", "description": "Record the proposed connection between divisive conduct and maintenance or acquisition of power.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which conduct, affected actors and time period constitute the proposed instance?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "candidate-divide-and-rule-instance-q01" }, { "text": "Does the interpretation require deliberate intent, or does it also admit a recurring functional pattern without established intent?", "kind": "definition", "id": "candidate-divide-and-rule-instance-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "attribution-evidence", "name": "Attribution evidence", "description": "Separates the source of the label from evidence supporting its application.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-and-intent-record", "name": "Claim and intent record", "description": "Record who attributes the strategy and whether intent is documented, inferred or disputed.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who calls this divide and rule, and which records or observations support that attribution?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claim-and-intent-record-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes deliberate fragmentation from unintended divisive effects?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "claim-and-intent-record-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "power-and-cleavage-configuration", "name": "Power and cleavage configuration", "description": "Maps the actors, dependencies and divisions through which the proposed strategy operates.", "rationale": "A division matters to this model because of its relationship to power and potential collective action.", "layers": [ { "id": "focal-actor-and-potential-coalition", "name": "Focal actor and potential coalition", "description": "Identifies the beneficiary and the actors whose coordination could constrain it.", "findings": [ { "id": "collective-leverage-at-stake", "name": "Collective leverage at stake", "description": "Record the power relationship and the plausible collective capacity threatened by fragmentation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which actor is proposed to benefit, and what authority, resources or intermediary position does it control?", "kind": "definition", "id": "collective-leverage-at-stake-q01" }, { "text": "What could the affected actors plausibly negotiate, resist or decide together that they cannot achieve separately?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "collective-leverage-at-stake-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "division-origin-and-salience", "name": "Division origin and salience", "description": "Examines whether a division predates the conduct and how its practical significance changes.", "findings": [ { "id": "activated-cleavage", "name": "Activated cleavage", "description": "Record the relevant disagreement or group boundary without assuming that groups are internally uniform.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which interests, identities, statuses or territorial boundaries are being created, amplified or selectively exploited?", "kind": "definition", "id": "activated-cleavage-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows how these divisions and cross-group relationships operated before the suspected intervention?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "activated-cleavage-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "fragmentation-mechanisms", "name": "Fragmentation mechanisms", "description": "Describes the specific conduct proposed to turn differences into reduced collective leverage.", "rationale": "Mechanism-level records distinguish divide and rule from unequal treatment or conflict with unrelated causes.", "layers": [ { "id": "selective-treatment-and-rivalry", "name": "Selective treatment and rivalry", "description": "Examines how separate deals, rewards or sanctions alter incentives to cooperate.", "findings": [ { "id": "differential-treatment-pathway", "name": "Differential treatment pathway", "description": "Record how treatment of one actor changes its relationship with others and with the focal actor.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rewards, sanctions or bargaining terms differ across actors, and who determines those differences?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "differential-treatment-pathway-q01" }, { "text": "How would those differences discourage joint action, and what evidence distinguishes that mechanism from treatment based on relevant needs or responsibilities?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "differential-treatment-pathway-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "coordination-obstruction-and-brokerage", "name": "Coordination obstruction and brokerage", "description": "Examines barriers to direct communication and arrangements that make the focal actor a necessary intermediary.", "findings": [ { "id": "restricted-horizontal-coordination", "name": "Restricted horizontal coordination", "description": "Record interference with shared information, joint representation or direct relationships among affected actors.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which communication channels, shared forums or representative arrangements are restricted, bypassed or selectively controlled?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "restricted-horizontal-coordination-q01" }, { "text": "How does this arrangement increase reliance on the focal actor or reduce the ability to verify claims and coordinate independently?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "restricted-horizontal-coordination-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "causal-assessment-and-outcomes", "name": "Causal assessment and outcomes", "description": "Tests whether the proposed intervention produced fragmentation and whether fragmentation strengthened the focal actor.", "rationale": "Intent, divisive effects and gains in power are separate claims that can succeed or fail independently.", "layers": [ { "id": "fragmentation-effect", "name": "Fragmentation effect", "description": "Assesses changes in cooperation against prior conditions and competing explanations.", "findings": [ { "id": "coordination-change-and-alternatives", "name": "Coordination change and alternatives", "description": "Record observable changes and assess whether the proposed mechanism explains them.", "questions": [ { "text": "How did joint bargaining, shared representation or cooperative action change relative to a specified baseline?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "coordination-change-and-alternatives-q01" }, { "text": "Could independent conflicts of interest, external shocks or voluntary separation explain the same change?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "coordination-change-and-alternatives-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "power-gains-and-backfire", "name": "Power gains and backfire", "description": "Evaluates benefits, failure and unintended consequences over a defined period.", "findings": [ { "id": "strategy-outcome", "name": "Strategy outcome", "description": "Record whether reduced coordination translated into greater control, or instead generated costs or renewed solidarity.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observable change in control, concessions or dependence followed the fragmentation, and over what period?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "strategy-outcome-q01" }, { "text": "Did affected actors rebuild cooperation, exit the relationship or otherwise undermine the expected power benefit?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "strategy-outcome-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "responses-and-legitimate-differences", "name": "Responses and legitimate differences", "description": "Assesses responses to divisive power mechanisms while preserving the agency and distinct interests of affected actors.", "rationale": "Addressing divide and rule requires reducing imposed fragmentation without treating all disagreement as illegitimate.", "layers": [ { "id": "independent-coordination", "name": "Independent coordination", "description": "Identifies ways affected actors can verify information and cooperate on terms they accept.", "findings": [ { "id": "coordination-restoration-options", "name": "Coordination restoration options", "description": "Record feasible changes to information access, shared representation and dependence on intermediaries.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which voluntary communication channels, shared fact checks or joint forums could reduce the evidenced coordination barrier?", "kind": "action", "id": "coordination-restoration-options-q01" }, { "text": "What retaliation, exclusion or confidentiality risks would participation create for differently situated actors?", "kind": "action", "id": "coordination-restoration-options-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "grievances-and-response-review", "name": "Grievances and response review", "description": "Preserves substantive differences and tests whether a response reduces the identified mechanism.", "findings": [ { "id": "pluralism-preserving-response", "name": "Pluralism-preserving response", "description": "Record legitimate unresolved grievances and evaluate responses without making unity a requirement.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which grievances and reasons for separate representation remain valid independently of the suspected strategy?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "pluralism-preserving-response-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence would show that the response reduced divisive dependence while preserving participants' freedom to disagree or withdraw?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "pluralism-preserving-response-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 listed kinds distinguish mechanisms rather than constitute a standardized taxonomy.", "Historical claims require evidence separating deliberate strategy from unintended fragmentation and retrospective interpretation.", "No universal measurement scale or dedicated identifier is supplied; this account is recalled knowledge, not source-verified research." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of divide and rule 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": [ "Creating divisions among potential opponents", "Exploiting existing rivalries", "Selective co-optation of factions" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of divide and rule 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": [ "Analysis of imperial and colonial governance through differentiated treatment of communities and local elites", "Analysis of authoritarian rulers' management of competing elites and opposition groups", "Interpretation of efforts to fragment political coalitions", "Analysis of employer practices that weaken coordination among workers" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of divide and rule 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": [ "Rivalries can escalate into violence beyond the initiating actor's control.", "Unequal treatment can institutionalize discrimination and exclusion.", "Recognition of deliberate manipulation can unite previously divided opponents.", "Persistent fragmentation can undermine trust, administrative capacity, and political stability.", "Attributing every division to a ruler's strategy can obscure independent interests and pre-existing conflicts." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of divide and rule 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": [ "Historical forms depend on local institutions and divisions, including dynastic, religious, ethnic, class, and regional rivalries.", "Colonial applications differed across empires and territories; the label alone does not establish which policies were used or whether they were deliberate." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of divide and rule 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": "Divide and conquer", "difference": "In political usage this is commonly a synonym; in computing it denotes solving a problem through smaller subproblems and does not imply political domination." }, { "name": "Balance of power", "difference": "Balancing counteracts concentrations of power; divide and rule specifically benefits an actor by impeding coordination among others." }, { "name": "Co-optation", "difference": "Co-optation incorporates or rewards potential opponents; it becomes divide and rule when it also separates them from allies or a wider opposition." }, { "name": "Political polarization", "difference": "Polarization describes increasing political separation and can arise without an actor deliberately using it to maintain power." }, { "name": "Indirect rule", "difference": "Indirect rule governs through local intermediaries; it need not involve deliberately dividing the governed." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of divide and rule this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference traditions require demonstrated intention for divide and rule, and which also recognise structural or emergent patterns?", "Where should the boundary fall between divide and rule, ordinary coalition bargaining and legitimate accommodation of different interests?", "What evidence is sufficient to infer a plausible counterfactual coalition without assuming that affected groups naturally share interests?", "Which measures of fragmentation and power are defensible across political, workplace and interorganisational settings?", "How should responsibility be attributed when several actors independently exploit the same divisions or when strategy is distributed across an institution?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }, "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 divide and rule, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to a suspected divide-and-rule strategy by recording how divisions among other actors are used to preserve or increase a focal actor's power.", "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: salami tactics.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 58 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 divide and rule, 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": [ "salami tactics" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 58 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 1 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 divide and rule from another, and a divide and rule 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a divide and rule 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a divide and rule 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule?", "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 divide and rule?", "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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 divide and rule is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a divide and rule, 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 divide and rule, 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 divide and rule 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 } } } }