{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:03:16Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 27.3, "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: 01a094da-3cbb-77d0-8123-c95dd43028e3\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: delusion\nSense to describe: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary\nDomain code: XCT.STA\nAlso known as: (n", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 71.9, "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: 01a094da-3cbb-78e1-9a75-0a3c071a6192\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: delusion\nRegistry id: vr.tr.delusion\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.STA\nRegistry definition: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of " } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T11:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:05:24+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:27+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: WordNet gloss", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-DELUSION", "registryId": "vr.tr.delusion", "name": "delusion", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.STA" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/delusion/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.delusion", "name": "delusion", "purpose": "Enable an agent to record and assess a possible delusion as a belief phenomenon, preserve uncertainty about its interpretation, and identify appropriate responses without treating disagreement as diagnosis.", "definition": "A delusion is a belief held with marked conviction despite compelling counterevidence, assessed in cultural and clinical context, although falsity, fixity, and the boundary with other strongly held beliefs remain contested.", "scope_statement": "This model owns vr.tr.delusion in XCT / XCT.STA: the content, conviction, evidential responsiveness, experiential context, cultural interpretation, course, and consequences of a possible delusional belief; it does not establish a psychiatric diagnosis.", "in_scope": [ "The belief as reported by its holder, distinguished from other people's interpretations", "Conviction, preoccupation, revisability, and responses to apparent counterevidence", "Cultural, religious, linguistic, and situational context relevant to interpretation", "Experiences and reasoning associated with the belief's emergence and persistence", "Distress, functional effects, and actions specifically associated with the belief", "Competing definitions and uncertainty about whether the belief qualifies as delusional" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Diagnosis and management of delusional disorder or other psychiatric conditions", "Hallucinations and other perceptual experiences considered independently of beliefs", "Obsessive thoughts, ordinary errors, misinformation, and ideological commitments as independent phenomena", "Neurological, medical, medication-related, or substance-related conditions underlying a presentation", "Determinations of legal capacity, responsibility, or involuntary treatment", "Independent investigation of alleged events such as surveillance, harassment, or persecution" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Establish that the person endorses a proposition as describing reality, rather than expressing a metaphor, fantasy, intrusive possibility, or deliberate fabrication.", "Assess conviction and responses to understandable, relevant counterevidence; persistence after disagreement alone does not distinguish a delusion from an ordinary error.", "Examine the person's cultural and religious reference context; unfamiliarity to the assessor is not sufficient grounds for a delusional interpretation.", "Distinguish an endorsed belief from an unwanted intrusive thought by examining ownership, doubt, resistance, and the person's relationship to the thought, while allowing ambiguous cases.", "Keep truth status separate from the proposed clinical classification: an unusual or implausible claim is not automatically delusional, and unresolved facts require explicit uncertainty." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Reported belief content", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Verbatim account plus attributed paraphrase; theme recorded separately", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an assessor's interpretation from replacing what the person actually believes." }, { "name": "Conviction", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Self-reported certainty, optionally 0-100%, with question wording and assessment time", "why_it_matters": "Records degree and fluctuation of endorsement without imposing a diagnostic cutoff." }, { "name": "Revisability", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Alternatives entertained; partially revisable; no revision observed; not assessed", "why_it_matters": "Separates strength of belief from willingness or ability to reconsider it." }, { "name": "Evidence relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Belief linked to reported supporting evidence, apparent counterevidence, verification status, and the holder's response", "why_it_matters": "Makes claims about resistance to evidence inspectable." }, { "name": "Cultural contextualization", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Context not assessed; contextual support identified; contextual mismatch reported; interpretation disputed", "why_it_matters": "Reduces misclassification based on cultural unfamiliarity or language differences." }, { "name": "Preoccupation", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Reported time occupied per day or proportion of waking time, with recall interval", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes occasional endorsement from a belief that dominates attention." }, { "name": "Associated distress", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Person-reported intensity, optionally 0-10, with named emotion and time window", "why_it_matters": "Captures suffering independently of whether a delusional interpretation is settled." }, { "name": "Functional consequences", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Belief linked to reported or observed effects on sleep, relationships, work, self-care, or everyday decisions", "why_it_matters": "Connects the belief to concrete effects without assuming every difficulty is caused by it." }, { "name": "Temporal course", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Onset uncertain; newly reported; persistent; fluctuating; no longer endorsed; recurrent", "why_it_matters": "Supports comparison over time without equating one report with an enduring condition." }, { "name": "Interpretive status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed belief; possible delusion; clinician-characterized delusion; disputed interpretation; insufficient information", "why_it_matters": "Preserves attribution and prevents a provisional label from becoming an unqualified fact." } ], "affordances": [ "Elicit and summarize the belief neutrally while separating endorsement from intrusive thought, metaphor, and speculation.", "Map reported evidence and responses to alternatives without confirming an unverified explanation.", "Compare competing interpretations and identify missing cultural, linguistic, or factual context.", "Track changes in conviction, preoccupation, distress, and functioning using consistent questions.", "Support discussion of feelings and practical needs without requiring agreement about the belief's truth.", "Prepare an attributed summary for professional assessment and identify concrete safety concerns when present." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Give general information on delusions from clinical sources, noting the debated boundaries.", "Encourage a person or their family to seek qualified mental health care." ], "must_not": [ "Label a person or their beliefs as delusional.", "Reinforce or play along with beliefs that a person reports are causing them distress.", "Use the term to dismiss religious, political or cultural beliefs.", "Disclose a person's mental health information without consent." ], "requires_human": [ "Responding when a person's beliefs suggest a risk to their safety or others'.", "Any treatment decision." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Calling a belief delusional can silence people and has been used against dissidents.", "People with psychosis need respect and care, not ridicule." ], "affected_parties": [ "People with psychosis", "Their families", "People whose beliefs are dismissed" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; clinicians answer for its assessment in each patient.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "The concept is used in mental health assessment, research and supportive conversations to describe a possible disturbance in belief.", "Assessment considers the person's cultural context, available evidence, degree of conviction and effects on daily life.", "The term should preserve uncertainty when information is incomplete and should not turn ordinary disagreement into a diagnosis." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision, issued by the World Health Organization, includes diagnostic categories involving delusions." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Mislabeling a culturally shared or reasonably supported belief as delusional can cause stigma and inappropriate intervention.", "Distressing beliefs may contribute to fear, isolation, conflict or disruption of daily activities.", "Responses that ridicule the person or reinforce an unverified threatening belief can increase distress and undermine trust.", "Assuming that a possible delusion establishes dangerousness or incapacity can lead to unjustified restrictions." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "A delusion is a belief phenomenon that cannot be established from visible appearance or behavior alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "oewn", "title": "Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-14400260-n", "url": "https://en-word.net/id/oewn-14400260-n", "what_it_supports": "sense and gloss of the concept", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" }, { "id": "wiktionary-en", "title": "Wiktionary: delusion", "url": "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/delusion", "what_it_supports": "word senses and usage", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "belief-content-and-boundaries", "name": "Belief content and boundaries", "description": "Establishes what is believed and what kind of mental or communicative phenomenon is being reported.", "rationale": "The registry definition presupposes a belief; that prerequisite must be established before applying a delusional interpretation.", "layers": [ { "id": "endorsed-proposition", "name": "Endorsed proposition", "description": "Separates the person's account from summaries and inferred meanings.", "findings": [ { "id": "literal-belief-endorsement", "name": "Literal belief endorsement", "description": "Record the proposition, its referents, and whether the person endorses it literally, tentatively, or figuratively.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the person say is happening, in their own words?", "kind": "definition", "id": "literal-belief-endorsement-q01" }, { "text": "Do they mean this as a fact, a possibility, a metaphor, or an imagined scenario?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "literal-belief-endorsement-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-phenomena", "name": "Neighbouring phenomena", "description": "Examines alternatives that can resemble delusional belief in a brief account.", "findings": [ { "id": "belief-thought-perception-distinction", "name": "Belief, thought, and perception distinction", "description": "Record whether the account concerns an endorsed explanation, an unwanted thought, a perception, or a combination, without forcing mutually exclusive categories.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the person endorsing an explanation or describing an unwanted thought they fear might be true?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "belief-thought-perception-distinction-q01" }, { "text": "If an unusual perception is reported, what belief about its cause or meaning is separately endorsed?", "kind": "definition", "id": "belief-thought-perception-distinction-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conviction-and-evidence", "name": "Conviction and evidence", "description": "Examines certainty, evidential support, and the belief's response to alternatives.", "rationale": "The registry's emphasis on persistence despite contrary evidence requires scrutiny of both the evidence and the person's actual response.", "layers": [ { "id": "certainty-and-revision", "name": "Certainty and revision", "description": "Records conviction separately from openness to reconsideration.", "findings": [ { "id": "conditions-for-reconsideration", "name": "Conditions for reconsideration", "description": "Record current certainty, acknowledged doubt, and any circumstances the person says could change their view.", "questions": [ { "text": "How certain is the person, and does certainty change across situations or times?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "conditions-for-reconsideration-q01" }, { "text": "What observation, if any, would lead them to reconsider the belief?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conditions-for-reconsideration-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-response", "name": "Evidence and response", "description": "Separates verified observations, interpretations, and disputed claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "counterevidence-quality", "name": "Counterevidence quality", "description": "Record what allegedly contradicts the belief, whether it was accessible and understandable to the person, and how they responded.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which supporting and contradicting observations have been independently checked, and by whom?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "counterevidence-quality-q01" }, { "text": "How did the person interpret the apparent counterevidence, and did any part of the belief change?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "counterevidence-quality-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "context-and-interpretation", "name": "Context and interpretation", "description": "Places the belief within cultural meaning, lived circumstances, and competing conceptual frameworks.", "rationale": "A delusional interpretation must not rest solely on an assessor's assumptions about what is normal or plausible.", "layers": [ { "id": "cultural-and-situational-context", "name": "Cultural and situational context", "description": "Examines relevant communities, language, and circumstances that affect interpretation.", "findings": [ { "id": "contextual-fit", "name": "Contextual fit", "description": "Record contextual interpretations and their sources, including uncertainty about actual threats or events.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do relevant cultural or religious reference communities understand this belief and its personal application?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "contextual-fit-q01" }, { "text": "What language differences, lived circumstances, or unresolved events could change the assessor's interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contextual-fit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitional-frameworks", "name": "Definitional frameworks", "description": "Makes explicit which account of delusion is being applied and where interpretations diverge.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-classification", "name": "Attributed classification", "description": "Record who proposes the label, the definition or assessment framework used, supporting observations, and competing explanations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who characterizes this belief as delusional, under which definition, and on what observations?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-classification-q01" }, { "text": "Would a framework emphasizing falsity, conviction, evidence responsiveness, or lived experience interpret this case differently?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attributed-classification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "emergence-and-course", "name": "Emergence and course", "description": "Records how the belief developed and how its endorsement changes.", "rationale": "A single statement cannot establish the belief's onset, persistence, or relationship to surrounding experiences.", "layers": [ { "id": "onset-and-associated-experiences", "name": "Onset and associated experiences", "description": "Reconstructs the reported sequence without converting association into causation.", "findings": [ { "id": "belief-emergence-sequence", "name": "Belief emergence sequence", "description": "Record first endorsement and preceding or accompanying experiences, including uncertainty in retrospective accounts.", "questions": [ { "text": "When was the belief first endorsed, and what account supports that timing?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "belief-emergence-sequence-q01" }, { "text": "What changes in perception, mood, sleep, health, or substance exposure were reported around that time?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "belief-emergence-sequence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "persistence-and-fluctuation", "name": "Persistence and fluctuation", "description": "Tracks changes in the belief's content, certainty, and prominence.", "findings": [ { "id": "longitudinal-belief-profile", "name": "Longitudinal belief profile", "description": "Distinguish changes in endorsement from reduced discussion, concealment, or reduced preoccupation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Across assessments, how have content, conviction, and time spent thinking about the belief changed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "longitudinal-belief-profile-q01" }, { "text": "If the person mentions it less, what establishes whether endorsement changed or discussion simply decreased?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "longitudinal-belief-profile-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequences-and-response", "name": "Consequences and response", "description": "Connects the belief to experienced effects and proportionate support.", "rationale": "An agent needs to respond to distress and concrete behaviour while maintaining uncertainty about classification and truth.", "layers": [ { "id": "distress-and-belief-linked-actions", "name": "Distress and belief-linked actions", "description": "Assesses consequences without assuming that delusional belief entails dangerousness or incapacity.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-functional-and-safety-effects", "name": "Attributed functional and safety effects", "description": "Record distress, disruption, and specific actions or intentions, with evidence for their relationship to the belief.", "questions": [ { "text": "What distress or disruption does the person associate with the belief, and what effects are independently observed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "attributed-functional-and-safety-effects-q01" }, { "text": "Are there specific actions or intentions involving harm, confrontation, or inability to meet basic needs that require a timely response?", "kind": "action", "id": "attributed-functional-and-safety-effects-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "supportive-engagement-and-assessment", "name": "Supportive engagement and assessment", "description": "Defines useful agent responses within the limits of the available evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "response-without-unverified-endorsement", "name": "Response without unverified endorsement", "description": "Identify ways to acknowledge feelings, address practical needs, and facilitate assessment without affirming an unverified explanation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What distress or practical need can be addressed without requiring agreement about the belief's explanation?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-without-unverified-endorsement-q01" }, { "text": "What uncertainties and attributed observations should accompany a referral or handover for professional assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-without-unverified-endorsement-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 is recall-based content; no sources were consulted.", "Researchers dispute whether delusions must be false and whether all delusions are adequately understood as beliefs.", "The listed kinds classify themes rather than exhaustive or mutually exclusive diagnoses; verify instrument versions and scoring instructions before use." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of delusion 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": [ "Persecutory", "Referential", "Grandiose", "Erotomanic", "Somatic", "Nihilistic" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of delusion 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": [ "DSM-5-TR, issued by the American Psychiatric Association, describes delusions within diagnostic criteria for several mental disorders.", "ICD-11, issued by the World Health Organization, distinguishes delusional disorder from other conditions in which delusions can occur." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of delusion 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": [ "Mental status examinations describe belief content, conviction, preoccupation, distress, and effects on behaviour.", "Differential diagnosis considers psychiatric, neurological, substance-related, and other medical explanations.", "Psychological formulation examines personal meaning, emotional context, and factors maintaining the belief.", "Clinical research tracks changes in delusional experiences and associated distress during treatment." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of delusion 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": "Delusion severity on the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales delusions subscale", "typical_range": "Possible total 0-24 across six items; this is a scale range, not a typical population range", "unit": "score" }, { "quantity": "Delusions item rating on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale", "typical_range": "Possible rating 1-7, from absent to extreme", "unit": "ordinal rating" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of delusion 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": [ "Treating an unusual, religious, or culturally shared belief as sufficient evidence of delusion.", "Assuming a belief is delusional solely because it is false, or excluding delusion solely because its content is possible.", "Inferring a specific disorder from a delusion without assessing its course, associated symptoms, and possible causes.", "Overlooking distress, self-neglect, or actions prompted by the belief; risk requires individual assessment.", "Assuming delusions imply dangerousness or loss of decision-making capacity." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of delusion 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": [ "Cultural and religious contexts affect whether a belief is considered shared, intelligible, or clinically unusual.", "Delusional themes can reflect locally salient technologies, institutions, threats, and explanatory traditions.", "Services differ in their use of DSM and ICD diagnostic frameworks." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of delusion 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": "Ordinary mistaken belief", "difference": "Usually remains more responsive to evidence; error alone does not establish delusion." }, { "name": "Overvalued idea", "difference": "A strongly invested belief that dominates thinking but is generally less fixed; the boundary with delusion is debated." }, { "name": "Obsession", "difference": "Typically involves recurrent intrusive thoughts, images, or urges rather than an endorsed belief, although insight can be poor." }, { "name": "Hallucination", "difference": "A perception-like experience without an corresponding external stimulus, rather than a belief." }, { "name": "Delusional disorder", "difference": "A diagnostic syndrome requiring additional criteria; a delusion is a symptom that can occur in multiple conditions." }, { "name": "Culturally sanctioned belief", "difference": "Cultural endorsement and context must be assessed before interpreting a belief as delusional; unusual content alone is insufficient." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of delusion this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "How should the registry's falsity-based definition accommodate frameworks that emphasize the manner of belief formation or maintenance when truth status is unresolved?", "Which operational measures of conviction, revisability, and preoccupation are suitable across languages and settings, and what limits do they have?", "How should cultural contextualization be assessed when reference communities disagree or a shared belief has an unusual personal application?", "Where should boundaries with overvalued ideas and obsessive beliefs be drawn when conviction and insight fluctuate?", "What evidence is sufficient to distinguish reduced endorsement from concealment, reduced preoccupation, or a change in willingness to disclose?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 28 } }