{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:57:44Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.1, "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: 01a0957a-1fb5-78a3-bbce-d3887bb333fb\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: peer\nSense to describe: a person who is of equal standing with another in a group\nDomain code: SOC.PER\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 61.0, "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: 01a0957a-1fc5-7af2-a1b0-d237641be306\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: peer\nRegistry id: vr.tr.peer\nPlane / domain: SOC / SOC.PER\nRegistry definition: a person who is of equal standing with another in a group\nNames folde" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T11:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:05:10+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:28+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: WordNet gloss", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-PEER", "registryId": "vr.tr.peer", "name": "peer", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "SOC.PER" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/peer/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.peer", "name": "peer", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise when a person is another person's peer within a group, assess the basis and limits of that standing, and choose contextually appropriate actions.", "definition": "A peer is a person regarded as having equal standing with another within a specified group or in a relevant respect, such as status, age, experience or responsibility.", "scope_statement": "This model owns a person's contextual standing as a peer of another person within an identified group, including the dimension of equality, supporting evidence, recognition, and changes over time.", "in_scope": [ "The person, comparison person, and group that anchor a peer relationship", "The dimension and criteria on which standing is equal", "Evidence and recognition of peer standing, including disagreement", "Differences in authority or expertise that qualify the relationship", "Contextual opportunities and constraints associated with peer standing", "The period and circumstances in which peer standing applies" ], "out_of_scope": [ "A person's complete identity, biography, or psychological profile", "The group's complete governance and organisational structure", "Occupational qualifications, licensing, and employment arrangements", "Friendship, kinship, and other relationships independent of equal standing", "The procedures and outcomes of peer review or peer support programmes", "Nobility titles and computing peers as separate senses of the word" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A peer claim identifies another person and a group or group context; it is not an intrinsic attribute of an isolated person.", "Shared group membership alone does not establish peer standing; the relevant basis of equality must also be identified.", "Similarity in age, interests, or experience supports peer classification only when it establishes equal standing in the specified context.", "Friendship is neither a required criterion nor sufficient evidence of equal standing.", "Equality on one dimension does not establish equal expertise, authority, permissions, or standing on every other dimension." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Comparison person", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified person relative to whom peer standing is assessed", "why_it_matters": "Makes the relational claim explicit." }, { "name": "Reference group", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified group and relevant subgroup or activity context", "why_it_matters": "Bounds where equal standing is claimed." }, { "name": "Standing dimension", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Rank, membership status, participation status, experience level, or another explicitly defined dimension", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes contextual equality from general similarity." }, { "name": "Equality criterion", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named group rule, explicit comparison criterion, or unresolved criterion", "why_it_matters": "Makes the classification inspectable rather than relying on the label alone." }, { "name": "Assessment state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Supported, unsupported, disputed, or undetermined for the stated context", "why_it_matters": "Separates a peer claim from an evaluated relationship." }, { "name": "Recognition", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Recognition or rejection by either person, the group, or another identified assessor", "why_it_matters": "Preserves differences between formal classification and participants' accounts." }, { "name": "Authority asymmetry", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Specified supervisory, evaluative, resource-control, or other authority between the people", "why_it_matters": "Reveals limits on treating the relationship as equal for a particular action." }, { "name": "Applicable period", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Current, historical, prospective, or unknown, with dates or event boundaries when available", "why_it_matters": "Prevents outdated standing from being treated as current." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess a proposed peer relationship against explicit group-specific criteria.", "Explain the dimension on which two people have equal standing and identify its limits.", "Identify candidate peers for an activity using that activity's stated eligibility requirements.", "Request clarification when the comparison person, group, or equality criterion is missing.", "Flag authority differences or disputed recognition before arranging a peer interaction.", "Reassess peer standing after changes in membership, rank, responsibilities, or context." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe peer relationships and peer review or peer support in general terms.", "Match people with peers on criteria they have agreed to." ], "must_not": [ "Impersonate a peer to gain trust, especially with children or young people.", "Use peer comparison to shame or pressure a person.", "Disclose what a person shared in peer support without consent.", "Fake peer reviews, endorsements or testimonials." ], "requires_human": [ "Reporting a peer's conduct to an authority or employer." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Peer pressure shapes behaviour, for good and harm, especially among young people.", "Peer review and support depend on honesty and confidentiality." ], "affected_parties": [ "Young people", "People in peer support", "Reviewed authors and colleagues" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody: a relationship between people, not a thing owned.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "A peer is identified within a specified social, educational or professional group on the basis of relevant equal standing.", "Peer relationships are used in collaborative learning, mutual support, consultation and review.", "The basis of equality must be stated because similar age, experience or responsibility does not imply equal standing in every respect." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Assuming equal authority or expertise from peer status can lead to misplaced trust and poor decisions.", "Peer pressure can undermine independent judgment and encourage harmful behavior.", "Exclusion or unequal treatment within a peer group can cause distress and restrict access to support or opportunities." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No universal standard or official classification defines peer standing across all social and professional contexts.", "recognition": "Peer standing is a contextual social relationship that cannot be established from a person's visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "oewn", "title": "Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-09649426-n", "url": "https://en-word.net/id/oewn-09649426-n", "what_it_supports": "sense and gloss of the concept", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" }, { "id": "wiktionary-en", "title": "Wiktionary: peer", "url": "https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peer", "what_it_supports": "word senses and usage", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "http 200" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "relational-anchor", "name": "Relational anchor", "description": "Locate the peer claim between people within a particular group.", "rationale": "A peer cannot be recognised reliably without knowing whose equal the person is and where that equality applies.", "layers": [ { "id": "people-in-comparison", "name": "People in comparison", "description": "Identify the people connected by the claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-comparison-person", "name": "Explicit comparison person", "description": "Record the person described as a peer and the person against whom their standing is compared.", "questions": [ { "text": "Whose peer is this person claimed to be?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-comparison-person-q01" }, { "text": "Does the claim concern an identified pair or an unspecified set of people requiring clarification?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "explicit-comparison-person-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "group-context", "name": "Group context", "description": "Specify the shared context that gives standing its meaning.", "findings": [ { "id": "reference-group-boundary", "name": "Reference group boundary", "description": "Record the group, subgroup, or activity in which the comparison is being made and how each person belongs to it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Within which group or subgroup are these people being compared?", "kind": "definition", "id": "reference-group-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "What establishes each person's inclusion in that group for this comparison?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reference-group-boundary-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "basis-of-equal-standing", "name": "Basis of equal standing", "description": "Make the meaning and limits of equality explicit.", "rationale": "Peer standing must be distinguished from shared membership, resemblance, and equality on unrelated dimensions.", "layers": [ { "id": "equality-criteria", "name": "Equality criteria", "description": "Identify the dimension and rule used to establish equal standing.", "findings": [ { "id": "contextual-equality-test", "name": "Contextual equality test", "description": "Record the relevant standing dimension and the criterion by which both people qualify as equals.", "questions": [ { "text": "On which dimension must these people have equal standing to count as peers here?", "kind": "definition", "id": "contextual-equality-test-q01" }, { "text": "What rule or observable comparison establishes that they meet the same standing criterion?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "contextual-equality-test-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "limits-of-equivalence", "name": "Limits of equivalence", "description": "Identify differences that remain despite the peer relationship.", "findings": [ { "id": "dimension-specific-limits", "name": "Dimension-specific limits", "description": "Record whether differences in expertise, seniority, or authority are compatible with the stated basis of peer standing.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which differences between these people are irrelevant to the stated equality criterion?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "dimension-specific-limits-q01" }, { "text": "Which difference would invalidate peer standing for this particular context?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "dimension-specific-limits-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-recognition", "name": "Evidence and recognition", "description": "Separate supported standing from labels, assumptions, and contested accounts.", "rationale": "An agent needs to know who calls someone a peer, why, and whether that classification is accepted or disputed.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-support", "name": "Claim support", "description": "Identify the evidence behind the proposed classification.", "findings": [ { "id": "traceable-peer-claim", "name": "Traceable peer claim", "description": "Record the origin of the claim and evidence bearing on the group's equality criterion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who asserted this peer relationship, and in what context?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-peer-claim-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports equal standing beyond the use of the word peer?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-peer-claim-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "recognition-and-dispute", "name": "Recognition and dispute", "description": "Preserve differing accounts of whether the people are peers.", "findings": [ { "id": "divergent-recognition", "name": "Divergent recognition", "description": "Record each person's and the group's position separately from the assessment of whether the equality criterion is met.", "questions": [ { "text": "Do both people and the relevant group recognise this peer standing?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "divergent-recognition-q01" }, { "text": "If recognition differs, is the disagreement about membership, the equality criterion, its application, or acceptance of the relationship?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "divergent-recognition-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "peer-interaction-conditions", "name": "Peer interaction conditions", "description": "Determine how established peer standing bears on a proposed interaction.", "rationale": "Calling people peers does not itself establish permission, suitability, consent, or freedom from power differences.", "layers": [ { "id": "activity-eligibility", "name": "Activity eligibility", "description": "Connect the relevant peer criterion to the intended activity.", "findings": [ { "id": "peer-status-and-permission", "name": "Peer status and permission", "description": "Record what the activity requires in addition to peer standing and which rules establish eligibility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this activity require the same kind of equal standing established by the peer assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "peer-status-and-permission-q01" }, { "text": "What additional competence, consent, confidentiality, or authorisation requirements must be satisfied?", "kind": "action", "id": "peer-status-and-permission-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "power-in-the-interaction", "name": "Power in the interaction", "description": "Inspect authority differences relevant to the proposed use of the peer relationship.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequential-authority-differences", "name": "Consequential authority differences", "description": "Record whether either person can assess, supervise, reward, sanction, or otherwise materially influence the other in this activity.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can either person make consequential decisions about the other during or after this interaction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "consequential-authority-differences-q01" }, { "text": "How do the activity's rules require such authority differences to be handled?", "kind": "action", "id": "consequential-authority-differences-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "continuity-of-peer-standing", "name": "Continuity of peer standing", "description": "Track when the relationship applies and what requires reassessment.", "rationale": "Equal standing can change with the group, the people, or the comparison criterion.", "layers": [ { "id": "applicability-period", "name": "Applicability period", "description": "Bound the peer assessment in time.", "findings": [ { "id": "dated-standing", "name": "Dated standing", "description": "Record when equal standing was established and the period supported by available evidence.", "questions": [ { "text": "At what time or during which period is this peer relationship supported?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "dated-standing-q01" }, { "text": "Does the available evidence establish current standing or only a historical relationship?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "dated-standing-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reassessment-triggers", "name": "Reassessment triggers", "description": "Identify changes that may alter the relevant equality.", "findings": [ { "id": "standing-changing-events", "name": "Standing-changing events", "description": "Record changes in membership, rank, responsibilities, or group rules that require the peer claim to be evaluated again.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which changes would affect the equality criterion for this pair?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "standing-changing-events-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence should an agent obtain before retaining or revising the peer classification after such a change?", "kind": "action", "id": "standing-changing-events-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": [ "Peer is a relational social designation, not inherently an occupation, qualification or licensed role.", "Any operational definition should specify the comparison group and the dimension on which standing is equal.", "The listed kinds are common contextual distinctions, not a formal exhaustive taxonomy." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of peer 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": [ "Age peer", "Professional peer", "Academic peer", "Organisational peer" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of peer 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": [ "Peer learning among students of comparable standing.", "Peer review by people with relevant expertise.", "Peer support among people with shared experiences.", "Comparison with colleagues at a comparable organisational level.", "Study of peer influence within social groups." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of peer 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": [ "Assuming that equal standing in one respect implies equal expertise, authority or resources.", "Treating shared group membership as sufficient evidence of equal standing.", "Peer pressure encouraging conformity or harmful behaviour.", "Informal power differences undermining nominal equality.", "Exclusion through narrowly or inconsistently defined peer-group boundaries." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of peer 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": [ "British usage also includes a distinct sense referring to a member of the peerage; that sense is outside this definition.", "The importance of age, seniority, credentials and rank in determining peer standing varies across societies and institutions." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of peer 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": "Colleague", "difference": "A colleague shares a workplace or profession but need not have equal standing." }, { "name": "Friend", "difference": "Friendship entails a personal relationship; peer standing does not require friendship." }, { "name": "Group member", "difference": "Membership establishes belonging, whereas peer standing additionally requires equality in a relevant respect." }, { "name": "Counterpart", "difference": "A counterpart occupies a corresponding position, often in another organisation, without necessarily belonging to the same peer group." }, { "name": "Superior", "difference": "A superior has higher standing or authority in the relevant hierarchy." }, { "name": "Peer group", "difference": "A peer group is a collection of people with comparable standing; a peer is an individual considered in relation to others." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which kinds of standing does this registry entry intend to cover, and when do age or experience similarities qualify?", "Must the reference group have explicit membership, or can an informal comparison group satisfy the registry definition?", "How should formal equality and unequal informal influence be weighed when they support different assessments?", "Is mutual recognition necessary in any intended use, or should recognition always remain separate from criterion-based standing?", "Under what shared criteria can pairwise peer assessments support classification of an entire peer group?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }