{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:59:16Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23.4, "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: 01a09544-8677-7222-aa49-e115f176156f\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: literary canon\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 044: 1001 ", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a09544-8686-7fb0-80c4-bec824a20f79\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: literary canon\nRegistry id: vr.tr.literary-canon\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (no" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:46:12+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-08T19:09:47+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q10549999", "registryId": "vr.tr.literary-canon", "name": "literary canon", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q10549999/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.literary-canon", "name": "literary canon", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a literary canon, assess evidence for its membership and authority, and make contextualised decisions about describing, comparing or revising it.", "definition": "A literary canon is a historically contingent body of literary works or authors accorded exemplary status and sustained attention within a particular cultural, linguistic, institutional, or critical community.", "scope_statement": "This model owns a literary canon as a historically situated selection of literary works, authors or traditions accorded exemplary status by an identifiable community, including its boundaries, recognition practices, disputes and change over time.", "in_scope": [ "The literary, linguistic, geographic and historical boundaries claimed for a canon", "Membership claims about works, authors and literary traditions", "Communities and institutions that confer, reproduce or contest canonical status", "Criteria and practices through which literary selections acquire authority", "Changes in recognition, exclusions, recoveries and competing canon formations" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete text, narrative structure and interpretation of individual literary works", "Bibliographic descriptions of expressions, editions, manifestations and individual copies", "Author biographies and the full histories of literary movements", "Library holdings, reading lists and anthologies considered independently of claims to canonical authority", "Copyright ownership and permissions for reproducing constituent texts", "A religious canon's doctrinal authority or a fictional universe's continuity rules" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A literary canon attributes exemplary or legitimating status to its selections; a bibliography can merely enumerate literature.", "Canonical status is asserted or reproduced within a community; a personal favourites list does not establish wider recognition without additional evidence.", "A syllabus or anthology may provide evidence of canon formation, but its contents do not automatically equal the canon.", "Membership can be graded and disputed without an official master list, unlike a collection defined solely by recorded holdings.", "The object concerns literary recognition rather than the accepted continuity of a fictional universe or the scriptural authority of a religious canon." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Canon frame", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "National, linguistic, regional, global, genre-specific, period-specific, community-specific or explicitly combined", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the population of literature over which recognition is being claimed." }, { "name": "Recognising community", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named communities, institutions or networks, with geographic and temporal scope", "why_it_matters": "Prevents one group's judgements from being presented as universal literary authority." }, { "name": "Membership subject", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Work, author, corpus or literary tradition", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes recognition of a particular work from recognition of an author's entire output." }, { "name": "Recognition position", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Core, peripheral, emerging, declining, contested or undetermined, relative to a stated community and period", "why_it_matters": "Supports qualified membership claims without forcing consensus or binary inclusion." }, { "name": "Observation period", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Dated interval, with precision and uncertainty stated", "why_it_matters": "Makes historical comparisons possible without projecting current recognition backwards." }, { "name": "Institutional recurrence", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Count or proportion of a defined sample of syllabi, anthologies, examinations or critical histories within a dated interval", "why_it_matters": "Provides an observable indicator of reproduction while retaining the sample and denominator needed to interpret it." }, { "name": "Basis of literary value", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Attributed criteria such as aesthetic achievement, historical influence, representativeness or pedagogical value", "why_it_matters": "Separates the reasons offered for recognition from an agent's own evaluation." }, { "name": "Membership evidence", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Dated, attributable sources supporting or contesting a specific recognition claim", "why_it_matters": "Allows an agent to distinguish documented status from an unsupported proposed selection." } ], "affordances": [ "Describe canonical recognition with explicit community, period and evidence qualifications.", "Compare membership across canons while preserving differences in scope and selection unit.", "Trace how teaching, criticism, publishing and translation reproduce particular selections.", "Identify disputed inclusions, underdocumented exclusions and competing accounts of literary value.", "Propose revisions to a stated selection while distinguishing the proposal from established recognition.", "Construct a reading pathway from a canon while disclosing edition, translation and availability choices." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe which works a canon includes and how that has changed over time.", "Present debates over who is included and excluded, with views from several sides." ], "must_not": [ "Present one community's canon as the universal measure of literary worth.", "Dismiss writers or traditions as unworthy because they are absent from a canon.", "Reproduce copyrighted canonical works in full without permission." ], "requires_human": [ "Setting a reading list for a school or curriculum." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Canons shape whose voices are taught and remembered.", "Exclusion from a canon has often followed lines of gender, race, class and language." ], "affected_parties": [ "Excluded writers and traditions", "Students", "Readers" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns a canon; teachers, critics, publishers and institutions shape it together.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "Literary canons are encountered in curricula, literary histories, criticism, publishing and cultural institutions.", "They guide choices about teaching, preservation and sustained study while providing evidence of a community's changing judgments about literary importance." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Presenting one community's canon as universal can marginalize other languages, traditions and authors.", "Treating membership as fixed can erase historical disagreement and changes in institutional priorities.", "Using canonical status as a substitute for evaluating a work can reproduce selection biases in teaching and automated recommendations." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No universal official standard or classification determines membership in a literary canon.", "recognition": "A literary canon is an abstract cultural selection whose membership requires contextual evidence rather than visual identification." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q10549999: literary canon", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10549999", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-de", "title": "Wikipedia (de): Kanon der Literatur", "url": "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanon_der_Literatur", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "canon-frame", "name": "Canon frame", "description": "Defines which literary field and recognising community the canon concerns.", "rationale": "Canonical status is meaningful only within a stated cultural and historical frame.", "layers": [ { "id": "literary-boundaries", "name": "Literary boundaries", "description": "Records the canon's claimed range of literature and its boundary cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "field-of-selection", "name": "Field of selection", "description": "Specify the languages, periods, genres and geographic affiliations within which selections are made.", "questions": [ { "text": "What literary population does this canon claim to select from?", "kind": "definition", "id": "field-of-selection-q01" }, { "text": "How are multilingual, diasporic, oral and cross-genre works treated at its boundaries?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "field-of-selection-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "community-and-period", "name": "Community and period", "description": "Locates the canon's authority among particular readers and institutions at particular times.", "findings": [ { "id": "situated-recognition", "name": "Situated recognition", "description": "Attribute the canon to those who recognise it and distinguish their terminology from later analytical labels.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which community or institutions recognise this selection as exemplary literature?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "situated-recognition-q01" }, { "text": "For which period is that recognition documented, and was the canon's name used then or assigned retrospectively?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "situated-recognition-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "membership-and-standing", "name": "Membership and standing", "description": "Represents what is recognised and how strongly or controversially it belongs.", "rationale": "An author's prestige, a work's recognition and an edition's prominence must not collapse into the same membership claim.", "layers": [ { "id": "recognised-subjects", "name": "Recognised subjects", "description": "Identifies the unit to which canonical status attaches.", "findings": [ { "id": "selection-unit", "name": "Selection unit", "description": "Distinguish selected works from authors, corpora and traditions, including cases where recognition depends on a particular textual expression.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this claim recognise a named work, an author, a defined corpus or a literary tradition?", "kind": "definition", "id": "selection-unit-q01" }, { "text": "Does recognition attach to the work broadly or specifically to a translation, adaptation or textual version?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "selection-unit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "degrees-of-recognition", "name": "Degrees of recognition", "description": "Records the strength and distribution of membership claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-standing", "name": "Qualified standing", "description": "Assess standing using attributed evidence while preserving disagreements among communities and institutions.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence supports describing this subject as core, peripheral, emerging, declining or contested?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-standing-q01" }, { "text": "How widely does that standing recur across a defined sample of relevant institutions or sources?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "qualified-standing-q02" }, { "text": "Does disagreement concern membership itself, relative importance or the reasons for inclusion?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-standing-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "valuation-and-authority", "name": "Valuation and authority", "description": "Records the grounds and agents of literary consecration.", "rationale": "A canon expresses judgements of literary value whose authority and application need to be inspectable.", "layers": [ { "id": "selection-criteria", "name": "Selection criteria", "description": "Captures the reasons given for treating literature as exemplary.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-value-claims", "name": "Attributed value claims", "description": "Record evaluative criteria as claims made by identifiable actors rather than inherent properties certified by the model.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which criteria are explicitly invoked to justify inclusion or exclusion?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attributed-value-claims-q01" }, { "text": "Who states these criteria, and which selection decisions show how they are applied?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-value-claims-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "recognition-authorities", "name": "Recognition authorities", "description": "Identifies actors whose decisions influence canonical standing.", "findings": [ { "id": "authority-and-reach", "name": "Authority and reach", "description": "Distinguish formal curricular authority from influence exercised through criticism, publishing and reader communities.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which critics, educators, publishers or communities confer recognition, and through what decisions?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "authority-and-reach-q01" }, { "text": "Within which institutions or readerships do those decisions have demonstrable reach?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "authority-and-reach-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "transmission-and-access", "name": "Transmission and access", "description": "Tracks the practices and material conditions that sustain canonical recognition.", "rationale": "Teaching, selection, circulation and translation help reproduce a canon, but each supplies a different kind of evidence.", "layers": [ { "id": "curricular-and-critical-reproduction", "name": "Curricular and critical reproduction", "description": "Examines repeated selection in education, anthologies and literary criticism.", "findings": [ { "id": "recurrence-with-context", "name": "Recurrence with context", "description": "Record recurrence alongside the purpose and coverage of the sampled sources.", "questions": [ { "text": "How often is the subject selected across the specified syllabi, anthologies, examinations or literary histories?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "recurrence-with-context-q01" }, { "text": "Does each occurrence present the subject as exemplary, historically illustrative, disputed or selected for another purpose?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "recurrence-with-context-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "textual-circulation", "name": "Textual circulation", "description": "Relates recognition to the editions, translations and access conditions through which readers encounter works.", "findings": [ { "id": "mediated-availability", "name": "Mediated availability", "description": "Identify how textual availability may support or constrain recognition without treating availability as proof of canonical status.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which editions, translations or performance and oral transmission practices mediate this work's recognition?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "mediated-availability-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes limited access from low esteem when explaining infrequent selection?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "mediated-availability-q02" }, { "text": "Which available version should an agent use for a reading pathway, and what limitations should accompany that choice?", "kind": "action", "id": "mediated-availability-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "contestation-and-change", "name": "Contestation and change", "description": "Represents exclusions, alternative selections and changes in standing.", "rationale": "A canon must remain historically revisable, with disagreement and uncertain explanations preserved.", "layers": [ { "id": "exclusion-and-alternatives", "name": "Exclusion and alternatives", "description": "Documents challenges to membership and the literary field a canon claims to represent.", "findings": [ { "id": "documented-challenges", "name": "Documented challenges", "description": "Separate observable absence from evidenced exclusion and record alternative canons in their own terms.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which sources document deliberate exclusion or structural barriers, rather than merely absence from a selection?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "documented-challenges-q01" }, { "text": "Does a proposed alternative revise this canon's membership or establish a different community, scope or basis of value?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "documented-challenges-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "historical-revision", "name": "Historical revision", "description": "Tracks dated changes while distinguishing observation, explanation and advocacy.", "findings": [ { "id": "recognition-trajectories", "name": "Recognition trajectories", "description": "Record entry, recovery, persistence and decline through comparable historical evidence.", "questions": [ { "text": "What comparable evidence establishes a change in standing between the periods examined?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "recognition-trajectories-q01" }, { "text": "Which explanations for that change are supported, disputed or still speculative?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "recognition-trajectories-q02" }, { "text": "Should new evidence revise the description of recognised membership or be recorded as a proposal for future inclusion?", "kind": "action", "id": "recognition-trajectories-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": [ "With no recorded sense, this describes cultural and literary selection rather than an author's authenticated oeuvre.", "Canon boundaries and the labels used for varieties are contested; there is no single universal membership list or governing standard.", "Specific membership claims require a named community, period, and evidential basis; none are asserted here." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of literary canon 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": [ "National canons", "Language-based canons", "Religious literary canons", "Genre-specific canons", "Educational canons", "Counter-canons" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of literary canon 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": [ "Selecting works for literature curricula and examinations.", "Organizing literary histories and reference works.", "Guiding anthology selection, scholarly editions, and republication.", "Establishing shared references for criticism and literary interpretation.", "Examining cultural authority, representation, and exclusion." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of literary canon 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": [ "Presenting historically situated judgments of literary value as universal or timeless.", "Excluding traditions disadvantaged by language, class, gender, race, colonial power, or access to publication.", "Treating a syllabus or anthology as definitive evidence of a community's entire canon.", "Conflating institutional visibility and availability with literary merit.", "Assuming canonical status is fixed or consistently shared across communities." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of literary canon 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": [ "National and linguistic communities sustain overlapping but distinct canons through education, publishing, criticism, and translation.", "Multilingual and postcolonial settings may contain competing canons associated with different languages and institutional histories.", "Traditions differ in how strongly canonical recognition depends on written texts, oral transmission, religious institutions, or formal education." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of literary canon 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": "Anthology", "difference": "An anthology is a concrete selection of works or excerpts; it may express or influence a canon without being identical to it." }, { "name": "Literary corpus", "difference": "A corpus is a collection assembled under specified criteria; membership does not necessarily confer exemplary cultural status." }, { "name": "Literary tradition", "difference": "A tradition encompasses inherited practices, forms, and relationships; a canon identifies privileged works or authors within or across traditions." }, { "name": "Scriptural canon", "difference": "A scriptural canon concerns recognition as authoritative scripture by a religious community; literary canonical status concerns literary or cultural standing." }, { "name": "Authorial canon", "difference": "An authorial canon identifies works accepted as belonging to an author's oeuvre; it need not rank those works as culturally exemplary." }, { "name": "Canonical edition", "difference": "A canonical edition is a privileged textual version or edition of a work; a literary canon concerns the standing of works or authors." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of literary canon this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "What operational evidence is sufficient to distinguish a community's literary canon from a frequently reused reading list?", "How should degrees of canonical standing be compared across communities whose educational and publishing records differ substantially?", "When should a translation or adaptation receive a separate recognition claim because its standing diverges from that of the originating work?", "How can oral and poorly archived literary traditions be represented without making documentary abundance a proxy for literary authority?", "Which criteria distinguish historical recovery within an existing canon from the formation of a separate or competing canon?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 29 } }