{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:05:32Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 17.2, "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: 01a094dc-6b8b-7111-8b5a-cf7e9d36d8c4\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: denial\nSense to describe: the act of refusing to comply (as with a request)\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 ", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 64.6, "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: 01a094dc-6b8a-7831-9d04-7e468ac932b6\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: denial\nRegistry id: vr.tr.denial\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: the act of refusing to comply (as with a request)\nNames folded in" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:42:39+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "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-DENIAL", "registryId": "vr.tr.denial", "name": "denial", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/denial/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.denial", "name": "denial", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a refusal to comply, determine its scope and current force, and choose an appropriate response without treating refusal as permission.", "definition": "Denial, in the sense of refusal to comply, is an act by which an agent declines to perform or permit an action requested, demanded, or directed by another.", "scope_statement": "This model owns denial as an act of refusing to comply with an identifiable request, demand, instruction or expectation, including its expression, scope, conditions and subsequent revision.", "in_scope": [ "The requested conduct and the person or organisation refusing it", "Explicit refusals and conduct that may evidence a refusal", "The portion of requested conduct refused and any stated conditions", "Stated reasons, grounds and authority for the refusal", "Whether the refusal remains operative, has been qualified or has been withdrawn", "Available clarification, reconsideration and response paths" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Denial that a proposition is true, unless it also performs a refusal to comply", "Psychological denial as a defence mechanism", "Denial-of-service attacks and technical service unavailability", "The complete lifecycle of the underlying request or obligation", "Domain-specific rules governing consent, eligibility, appeals or sanctions", "Nonperformance caused solely by inability, delay or failure to receive a request" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An identifiable requested or expected action is refused; merely contradicting a statement is insufficient.", "An explicit refusal can establish denial before the requested action becomes due or nonperformance occurs.", "Failure to comply alone does not establish denial: inability, misunderstanding, delay and nonreceipt remain alternative explanations.", "A request for clarification or an alternative proposal counts as denial only insofar as it refuses the original requested conduct.", "The refusal may address only part of a request or apply under specified conditions; it does not automatically reject every related action." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Requested conduct", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Reference to the request, demand, instruction or expectation and the conduct sought", "why_it_matters": "A refusal cannot be interpreted reliably without knowing what compliance would involve." }, { "name": "Refusing actor and represented party", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor expressing the refusal; party on whose behalf it is expressed; authority known or unresolved", "why_it_matters": "The speaker, messenger and party whose compliance is refused may differ." }, { "name": "Refusal evidence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicit statement; conventional signal; conduct supporting an inference; ambiguous evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates observable evidence from an interpretation of intent." }, { "name": "Refused scope", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Entire request; specified components; specified manner; specified timing; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a limited refusal from being expanded into a blanket rejection." }, { "name": "Conditions of application", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Stated circumstances, prerequisites, exceptions or time limits", "why_it_matters": "Determines when the refusal applies and whether a changed proposal falls outside it." }, { "name": "Stated grounds", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "No reason supplied; unwillingness; claimed inability; claimed constraint; disputed obligation; other stated reason", "why_it_matters": "Preserves the actor's explanation without treating it as independently verified." }, { "name": "Current force", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Operative; qualified; withdrawn; superseded; no longer applicable under stated terms; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes the historical act of refusal from its present applicability." }, { "name": "Communication status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Expressed; transmitted; receipt evidenced; acknowledged; unknown", "why_it_matters": "A refusal being made does not establish that the requester received or understood it." } ], "affordances": [ "Link the refusal to the precise requested conduct and affected parties.", "Identify whether evidence supports refusal or only unexplained nonperformance.", "Clarify ambiguous wording, scope or conditions without presuming agreement.", "Record stated reasons separately from verified grounds and applicable rules.", "Check whether an alternative proposal or authorised reconsideration route is available.", "Track qualification or withdrawal while preserving the original refusal and its evidence." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Decline a request it is not authorized or not able to fulfil, and say so clearly.", "Record that a request was refused and the stated reason, where records are required." ], "must_not": [ "Refuse a request silently or pretend to comply while not doing so.", "Invent reasons for a refusal or hide the real one.", "Refuse a person a service they are entitled to because of who they are.", "Override a person's lawful refusal of something they have a right to decline." ], "requires_human": [ "Refusing a request where the refusal could put someone in danger, such as in an emergency." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "The right to refuse protects personal autonomy, including the right to decline treatment or searches.", "Unjust refusals of service can be discrimination." ], "affected_parties": [ "People who are refused", "People whose refusals are ignored" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the act; each agent answers for its own refusals.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Arbitrary refusals can deny people essential services.", "Ignored refusals can amount to coercion." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Denial occurs when a person or other agent declines a request, demand or instruction to act or grant permission.", "It is encountered in consent discussions, service interactions, workplace exchanges and automated authorization decisions.", "Interpreting it requires identifying the refused action, any stated conditions and whether the refusal remains current." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No single standard, law or official classification applies to refusal to comply across all contexts.", "recognition": "Refusal is a communicative act whose meaning depends on context and cannot be established reliably from visual appearance alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "oewn", "title": "Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-07219061-n", "url": "https://en-word.net/id/oewn-07219061-n", "what_it_supports": "sense and gloss of the concept", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" }, { "id": "wiktionary-en", "title": "Wiktionary: denial", "url": "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/denial", "what_it_supports": "word senses and usage", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "refusal-target-and-parties", "name": "Refusal target and parties", "description": "Establish what compliance was sought and whose refusal the act expresses.", "rationale": "Denial is relational: the same words can refuse different conduct or speak for different parties.", "layers": [ { "id": "requested-compliance", "name": "Requested compliance", "description": "Identify the demand against which the refusal is understood.", "findings": [ { "id": "identifiable-compliance-target", "name": "Identifiable compliance target", "description": "Record the requested action, its source and any relevant version so the refusal has a determinate target.", "questions": [ { "text": "What action, omission, provision or cooperation was being requested?", "kind": "definition", "id": "identifiable-compliance-target-q01" }, { "text": "Which request or contextual evidence establishes that this was the conduct being refused?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "identifiable-compliance-target-q02" }, { "text": "Does the refusal address the original request or a revised proposal?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "identifiable-compliance-target-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "refusal-attribution", "name": "Refusal attribution", "description": "Separate the refusing party from anyone expressing or conveying its position.", "findings": [ { "id": "speaker-and-refusing-party", "name": "Speaker and refusing party", "description": "Attribute the refusal to a party while preserving uncertainty about representation or delegated authority.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who expressed the refusal, and whose compliance did they purport to refuse?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "speaker-and-refusing-party-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence establishes that the speaker could refuse on that party's behalf?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "speaker-and-refusing-party-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "recognising-the-refusal", "name": "Recognising the refusal", "description": "Determine whether the observed expression or conduct constitutes refusal in the registry's sense.", "rationale": "Denial is easily confused with contradiction, inability, silence and unfinished decision-making.", "layers": [ { "id": "expression-and-context", "name": "Expression and context", "description": "Preserve the words, signals or conduct through which refusal is understood.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-of-refusal", "name": "Evidence of refusal", "description": "Distinguish an explicit refusal from a contextual inference, retaining the evidence needed to revisit that interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exact statement, signal or conduct provides evidence that compliance was refused?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-of-refusal-q01" }, { "text": "Is refusal explicit, or does recognising it depend on a convention or contextual interpretation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "evidence-of-refusal-q02" }, { "text": "What clarification would resolve an ambiguous expression without presuming consent or compliance?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-of-refusal-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-acts", "name": "Neighbouring acts", "description": "Test plausible alternatives to refusal before classifying an event as denial.", "findings": [ { "id": "refusal-versus-nonperformance", "name": "Refusal versus nonperformance", "description": "Do not infer refusal solely from an unmet request, a statement of incapacity or a rejection of a factual claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Could the observed nonperformance reflect inability, nonreceipt, misunderstanding or delay rather than refusal?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "refusal-versus-nonperformance-q01" }, { "text": "Does the expression refuse an action, deny a proposition, request clarification, or perform more than one of these acts?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "refusal-versus-nonperformance-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "extent-and-grounds", "name": "Extent and grounds", "description": "Determine exactly what the refusal excludes and how its stated explanation relates to that exclusion.", "rationale": "An agent must respect the refusal's actual extent without inventing motives, exceptions or binding authority.", "layers": [ { "id": "scope-and-conditions", "name": "Scope and conditions", "description": "Identify refused components, retained possibilities and conditions of application.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-refusal", "name": "Bounded refusal", "description": "Record whether the refusal concerns the whole request, a component, a method or a time, and preserve any explicitly stated conditions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which requested components, methods or times are expressly refused?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-refusal-q01" }, { "text": "What exceptions or conditions did the refusing party actually state?", "kind": "definition", "id": "bounded-refusal-q02" }, { "text": "Does an offered alternative explicitly reject the original proposal, and which parts remain unresolved?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-refusal-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reasons-and-authority", "name": "Reasons and authority", "description": "Separate stated explanations from verified constraints and domain-specific consequences.", "findings": [ { "id": "grounds-without-invented-motive", "name": "Grounds without invented motive", "description": "Preserve reasons as attributed claims; assess their support and any relevant authority through the governing context.", "questions": [ { "text": "What reason, if any, did the refusing party provide, and where was it recorded?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "grounds-without-invented-motive-q01" }, { "text": "Which claimed constraints or rules have been verified, and which remain assertions?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "grounds-without-invented-motive-q02" }, { "text": "Which neighbouring model determines whether the refusal is permitted, binding or subject to review?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "grounds-without-invented-motive-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "operative-state-and-response", "name": "Operative state and response", "description": "Track whether the refusal still applies and identify responses supported by the current evidence and governing context.", "rationale": "A historical refusal can be revised, but silence, elapsed time or a revised request does not by itself establish agreement.", "layers": [ { "id": "communication-and-revision", "name": "Communication and revision", "description": "Distinguish expression, receipt and subsequent changes to the refusal.", "findings": [ { "id": "current-applicability", "name": "Current applicability", "description": "Maintain the original act and later communications together so current scope can be determined without erasing the history.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows when the refusal was expressed and whether the requester received it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "current-applicability-q01" }, { "text": "Has an attributable later act qualified, withdrawn or superseded the refusal?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "current-applicability-q02" }, { "text": "Do the refusal's stated conditions still apply to the conduct now proposed?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "current-applicability-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "permissible-next-steps", "name": "Permissible next steps", "description": "Select clarification, adaptation, review or closure according to the refusal and applicable rules.", "findings": [ { "id": "response-without-assumed-permission", "name": "Response without assumed permission", "description": "Identify supported next steps without treating an explanation, silence or withdrawal of refusal as sufficient authorisation for every related action.", "questions": [ { "text": "Should the agent stop the requested action, clarify the refusal, propose an alternative or invoke an established review process?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-without-assumed-permission-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence or authorisation is required before proceeding with conduct previously refused?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-without-assumed-permission-q02" }, { "text": "What limits apply to renewed requests or contact with the refusing party?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-without-assumed-permission-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "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 supplied sense governs this description; no medical meaning is inferred from the domain code INF.MED.", "The listed kinds are descriptive distinctions, not a formal or mutually exclusive classification.", "Whether silence or inaction constitutes implicit refusal depends on context; neither establishes refusal by itself." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of denial 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": [ "Explicit refusal", "Implicit refusal", "Conditional refusal", "Partial refusal" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of denial 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": [ "Declining requests in everyday interaction", "Rejecting demands during negotiation", "Refusing instructions in workplace or organisational settings", "Declining permission for a requested action" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of denial 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": [ "Indirect refusal may be mistaken for agreement, uncertainty, or delay.", "Refusal may escalate conflict when the requester expects compliance.", "Inability to comply may be misinterpreted as deliberate refusal.", "A refusal made under coercion may be misrepresented as a voluntary decision." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of denial 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": [ "Conventions for politeness, directness, explanation, and deference affect how refusals are expressed and understood across languages and communities." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of denial 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": "Denial of a proposition", "difference": "Rejects a statement as false rather than refusing a requested action." }, { "name": "Psychological denial", "difference": "Concerns failure or unwillingness to acknowledge reality rather than refusal to comply with another agent's request." }, { "name": "Noncompliance", "difference": "Describes failure to comply, which may result from inability, misunderstanding, or omission without an act of refusal." }, { "name": "Rejection", "difference": "Includes dismissing candidates, objects, or proposals; refusal to comply specifically concerns a requested or directed action." }, { "name": "Disobedience", "difference": "Specifically concerns noncompliance with an order or rule associated with authority; refusal can concern an ordinary request." }, { "name": "Inability", "difference": "Means lacking the capacity to act, whereas refusal concerns declining to act." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of denial this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend refusal of implicit expectations and standing instructions to be included alongside refusal of explicit requests?", "What evidence threshold should support classifying silence or conduct as refusal in each relevant communicative context?", "Should a private decision never to comply count as denial before it is expressed or enacted?", "How should institutional refusals delivered by automated systems be attributed when decision authority and message delivery are separate?", "Is there an existing Vercy world model for refusal that should remain the single source of truth for this registry entry?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 14, "questions": 28 } }