{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:32:43Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23.0, "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: 01a09563-475e-7ce2-a1ba-5c2641d246c8\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: negligence\nSense to describe: failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances\nDomain code: ACT.ACT", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 57.4, "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: 01a09563-4757-7680-b986-5b16fa264d27\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: negligence\nRegistry id: vr.tr.negligence\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:40:54+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-NEGLIGENCE", "registryId": "vr.tr.negligence", "name": "negligence", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/negligence/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.negligence", "name": "negligence", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a potential failure of reasonable care, record the grounds and uncertainty of that assessment, and identify appropriate preventive, investigative or referral actions.", "definition": "Negligence is conduct, by act or omission, that falls below the care a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances, with legal liability ordinarily requiring additional elements such as duty, causation, and legally recognised harm.", "scope_statement": "This model owns negligence as conduct assessed against context-dependent expectations of reasonable care, distinguishing a care shortfall from the additional conditions required for legal liability.", "in_scope": [ "Acts and omissions alleged to fall below reasonable care in specified circumstances", "Competing interpretations of reasonable prudence and their institutional or disciplinary provenance", "Risks, knowledge, capabilities and precautions available when the conduct occurred", "Evidence supporting or challenging an assessment of deficient care", "Relationships between a care shortfall, resulting harm and framework-specific responsibility" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Intentional wrongdoing and its independent grounds of responsibility", "Strict liability that does not depend on a failure of care", "Complete models of injuries, losses and their valuation", "Complete procedural models of litigation, adjudication and enforcement", "Professional practice standards except where they inform an applicable care benchmark" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify a specific act or omission and a defensible care benchmark; an adverse outcome alone does not establish negligence.", "Assess what was reasonably knowable and practicable at the time, rather than treating later knowledge as available beforehand.", "Distinguish falling below reasonable care from deliberately causing harm; record intent separately rather than inferring it from the outcome.", "For an omission, establish why action was reasonably expected of this actor in these circumstances.", "Distinguish a care shortfall from a legally actionable claim, whose additional requirements depend on the governing framework." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Assessment framework", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Ordinary prudence, professional practice, organisational safety, civil law, criminal law, or another explicitly identified framework", "why_it_matters": "Different frameworks can assess the same conduct differently and attach different consequences." }, { "name": "Conduct under assessment", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Act, omission, or combined course of conduct, with actor and time interval", "why_it_matters": "A negligence assessment must identify the conduct alleged to lack care." }, { "name": "Applicable care benchmark", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Connection to an attributed standard, comparator, practice or reasoned interpretation", "why_it_matters": "The benchmark explains why a precaution was expected rather than merely desirable." }, { "name": "Contemporaneous risk knowledge", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Known, reasonably discoverable, disputed, not reasonably discoverable, or unresolved, for each specified risk", "why_it_matters": "It separates prospective prudence from hindsight." }, { "name": "Opportunity to take care", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Available, constrained, unavailable, disputed, or unresolved, with the relevant time, authority and resources", "why_it_matters": "Expected precautions must be assessed against the actor's actual opportunity and the framework's treatment of constraints." }, { "name": "Departure from reasonable care", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Alleged, supported, contested, not supported, or unresolved, with reasons", "why_it_matters": "It preserves the distinction between an accusation and an evidenced assessment." }, { "name": "Connection to harm", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Specified conduct linked to specified harm through a proposed causal account and alternative explanations", "why_it_matters": "Deficient care and responsibility for a particular outcome require separate reasoning." }, { "name": "Assessment authority", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Connection to the assessor, their remit, the evidence considered and any authoritative determination", "why_it_matters": "An agent's provisional assessment must remain distinguishable from a competent authority's finding." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare a specified act or omission with explicitly attributed care benchmarks.", "Reconstruct the information, risks and feasible precautions available before the outcome.", "Identify missing evidence and competing explanations for an apparent care shortfall.", "Separate care, causation and liability questions for appropriate review.", "Recommend proportionate precautions or escalation while preserving unresolved responsibility." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain negligence and its elements in a named jurisdiction, citing law and cases.", "Record facts about an incident accurately for the people responsible for assessing it." ], "must_not": [ "Declare that a named person or organization was negligent unless a court or competent body has found so.", "Present general information as legal advice on a person's claim or defence.", "Alter, delete or withhold records that bear on whether care was taken.", "Apply one jurisdiction's standard of care to another." ], "requires_human": [ "Filing or settling a negligence claim.", "Reporting a colleague's or professional's suspected negligence to a regulator." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Negligence law decides who bears the cost of harm; errors fall on injured people or on those wrongly blamed.", "Fear of liability can drive defensive practice, while impunity leaves victims without remedy." ], "affected_parties": [ "People harmed by careless conduct", "People accused of negligence", "Insurers and employers" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; courts and legislatures define it in each jurisdiction.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Unchecked carelessness in workplaces, medicine or transport causes injury and death.", "Wrongful findings of negligence can end careers and reputations." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Potential negligence is assessed after accidents, service failures or omissions where a person or organization may have failed to exercise reasonable care.", "The concept supports incident investigation, prevention and legal assessment by connecting expected care with conduct, causation and harm." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, governs occupiers' duties of care to lawful visitors in England and Wales.", "The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, provides for reducing damages when a claimant's own fault contributes to the damage within its scope." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Negligence is an assessment of conduct against an applicable duty and standard of care, so appearance alone cannot establish it." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "oewn", "title": "Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-00740568-n", "url": "https://en-word.net/id/oewn-00740568-n", "what_it_supports": "sense and gloss of the concept", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" }, { "id": "wiktionary-en", "title": "Wiktionary: negligence", "url": "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negligence", "what_it_supports": "word senses and usage", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-care-benchmark", "name": "Meaning and care benchmark", "description": "Establishes which interpretation of negligence is being applied and how reasonable prudence is specified.", "rationale": "The registry definition supplies a starting point but does not settle the relevant comparator, institutional meaning or threshold.", "layers": [ { "id": "interpretations-of-negligence", "name": "Interpretations of negligence", "description": "Records ordinary, professional and legal uses without collapsing them into one definition.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-negligence-meaning", "name": "Attributed negligence meaning", "description": "Record the adopted meaning, who endorses it and whether it describes deficient conduct or a fuller basis of responsibility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does negligence here mean a failure of reasonable care, a legally actionable wrong, or another explicitly defined concept?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attributed-negligence-meaning-q01" }, { "text": "Which source or authority supports that meaning, and which competing interpretation could change the assessment?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-negligence-meaning-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reasonable-care-comparator", "name": "Reasonable care comparator", "description": "Specifies the expected care and the circumstances relevant to selecting a comparator.", "findings": [ { "id": "justified-care-expectation", "name": "Justified care expectation", "description": "Record the proposed reasonable-person or role-specific benchmark and the grounds for treating it as applicable.", "questions": [ { "text": "What would a reasonably prudent actor in the relevant role and circumstances have done differently?", "kind": "definition", "id": "justified-care-expectation-q01" }, { "text": "How does the chosen framework treat customary practice, written rules, expertise and emergency conditions when defining reasonable care?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "justified-care-expectation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conduct-risk-and-opportunity", "name": "Conduct, risk and opportunity", "description": "Reconstructs the actor's conduct and decision situation before the outcome was known.", "rationale": "Negligence concerns a preventable care shortfall under particular circumstances, requiring attention to knowledge, control and feasible alternatives.", "layers": [ { "id": "acts-and-omissions", "name": "Acts and omissions", "description": "Identifies the behaviour under assessment and the basis for expecting the actor to intervene.", "findings": [ { "id": "specified-care-opportunity", "name": "Specified care opportunity", "description": "Record what the actor did or failed to do, when intervention was possible and why that intervention was expected.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which specific act or omitted precaution is alleged to fall below reasonable care, and during what interval?", "kind": "definition", "id": "specified-care-opportunity-q01" }, { "text": "For an omission, what relationship, undertaking, responsibility or other applicable ground made action expected?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "specified-care-opportunity-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "foreseeability-and-feasible-precautions", "name": "Foreseeability and feasible precautions", "description": "Examines prospective risk and the practical opportunity to reduce it.", "findings": [ { "id": "prospective-precaution-assessment", "name": "Prospective precaution assessment", "description": "Record foreseeable risks, available precautions and relevant constraints using information available at the time.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows the risk's likelihood and severity were known or reasonably discoverable before the conduct?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "prospective-precaution-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Which precautions were feasible then, and how would their expected risk reduction, burdens and competing responsibilities be assessed?", "kind": "action", "id": "prospective-precaution-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "care-shortfall-and-evidence", "name": "Care shortfall and evidence", "description": "Connects the care benchmark to observed conduct and tests the strength of the resulting assessment.", "rationale": "A model must support a reasoned comparison and prevent allegations, outcomes or procedural breaches from standing in for that comparison.", "layers": [ { "id": "departure-from-care", "name": "Departure from care", "description": "Makes the alleged gap between expected and actual conduct explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-care-gap", "name": "Supported care gap", "description": "Record the particular departure, its supporting evidence and any framework-specific treatment of its seriousness.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observed facts demonstrate a gap between the applicable benchmark and the actor's conduct?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "supported-care-gap-q01" }, { "text": "Does the framework distinguish ordinary negligence from gross negligence or recklessness, and what additional evidence would support that distinction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "supported-care-gap-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidential-challenges", "name": "Evidential challenges", "description": "Tests evidence quality, hindsight effects and explanations consistent with reasonable care.", "findings": [ { "id": "contested-negligence-assessment", "name": "Contested negligence assessment", "description": "Record evidence against the allegation, gaps in reconstruction and the status of any determination.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which contemporaneous records support or challenge the allegation, and which claims rely on retrospective recollection?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contested-negligence-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Could the outcome have occurred despite reasonable care, and what evidence distinguishes that explanation from the alleged care failure?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "contested-negligence-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "harm-responsibility-and-response", "name": "Harm, responsibility and response", "description": "Separates the care assessment from causal attribution, formal liability and practical intervention.", "rationale": "An agent needs to know what a negligence assessment supports, what remains unresolved and what action is justified while those questions are reviewed.", "layers": [ { "id": "causation-and-liability-boundaries", "name": "Causation and liability boundaries", "description": "Tracks connections to harm and the additional requirements of the selected responsibility framework.", "findings": [ { "id": "separate-responsibility-tests", "name": "Separate responsibility tests", "description": "Record harm, causal explanations and any applicable liability requirements without treating a care shortfall as sufficient by itself.", "questions": [ { "text": "What supports the claim that the omitted or inadequate precaution contributed to the specified harm, and what alternative causes remain?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "separate-responsibility-tests-q01" }, { "text": "Which additional requirements, limitations or defences must the applicable framework resolve before assigning liability?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "separate-responsibility-tests-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "prevention-and-authorised-review", "name": "Prevention and authorised review", "description": "Connects uncertainty and ongoing exposure to proportionate action and competent assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "response-under-uncertainty", "name": "Response under uncertainty", "description": "Record immediate precautions, evidence-preservation needs and who is authorised to make consequential determinations.", "questions": [ { "text": "What proportionate action can reduce a continuing risk while the negligence allegation remains unresolved?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-under-uncertainty-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence should be preserved, and which competent reviewer should assess disputed care, causation or responsibility?", "kind": "action", "id": "response-under-uncertainty-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This describes the general concept from recall, chiefly through common-law tort usage; no sources were consulted.", "Gross negligence, negligence per se, and professional negligence have jurisdiction-dependent definitions and legal consequences.", "Fault percentages allocate legal responsibility rather than directly measure carelessness; verify applicable legislation, case law, and amendments before legal use." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of negligence 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": [ "Ordinary negligence", "Gross negligence", "Professional negligence", "Negligence per se", "Contributory negligence" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of negligence 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": [ "Restatement (Second) of Torts and Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm - American Law Institute; influential formulations of US tort principles, not legislation.", "Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 - UK Parliament; governs specified duties of occupiers in England and Wales.", "Civil Liability Act 2002 - Parliament of New South Wales; regulates aspects of negligence liability and damages in that Australian state." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of negligence 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": [ "Assessing responsibility for injuries arising from road collisions.", "Evaluating whether medical or other professional services met the applicable standard of care.", "Determining responsibility for unsafe premises.", "Assessing failures to take reasonable workplace safety precautions.", "Evaluating insurance claims involving alleged failures of reasonable care." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of negligence 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": "Allocated share of responsibility under comparative fault rules", "typical_range": "0-100", "unit": "percent" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of negligence 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": [ "Inferring negligence solely from an adverse outcome rather than assessing conduct using information reasonably available at the time.", "Treating careless conduct as sufficient for liability without establishing the remaining legal elements.", "Assuming that compliance with customary practice or a regulation necessarily establishes reasonable care.", "Applying an ordinary-person standard without accounting for applicable professional standards or recognised contextual adjustments.", "Assuming that any failure to intervene creates liability despite jurisdiction-specific limits on duties to act." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of negligence 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": [ "US jurisdictions differ between contributory negligence and comparative fault approaches; a claimant's own negligence may bar recovery or reduce damages.", "England and Wales distinguish the establishment of a duty of care from breach, causation, and actionable damage; statutory rules modify particular settings.", "Civil-law systems commonly address comparable conduct through fault-based liability, but their categories and requirements do not map exactly onto the common-law tort of negligence." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of negligence 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": "Recklessness", "difference": "Recklessness generally involves conscious disregard of a substantial risk; negligence can arise from failing to recognise a risk that reasonable care would reveal." }, { "name": "Intentional wrongdoing", "difference": "Negligence does not require an intention to cause the harmful consequence; intentionally performing an act can nevertheless be negligent." }, { "name": "Strict liability", "difference": "Strict liability can attach without proof that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care." }, { "name": "Accident", "difference": "An unintended harmful event may occur despite reasonable care; an accident alone does not establish negligence." }, { "name": "Omission", "difference": "An omission is a failure to act; it is negligent only when the applicable standard calls for action, and liability requires an applicable duty." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works best distinguish negligence as ordinary imprudence from its professional, civil and criminal meanings?", "How do relevant frameworks specify the reasonable-person comparator and accommodate expertise, individual capacities and emergency circumstances?", "Which operational methods assess foreseeable risk and precaution feasibility reliably without importing hindsight or unsupported numerical precision?", "Where do relevant frameworks draw the boundaries between negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and unavoidable error?", "How should distributed organisational failures be represented when individual control and responsibility are contested?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 16, "questions": 24 } }