{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:15:10Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 16.6, "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: 01a09553-2bd4-7663-8aa8-2748f36bb9a4\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: merit good\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: PHY.OBJ\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 044: 1001 regi", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 59.6, "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: 01a09553-2bd4-7c40-ad0f-191166c1571d\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: merit good\nRegistry id: vr.tr.merit-good\nPlane / domain: PHY / PHY.OBJ\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCo" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:51:51+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:25+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q109972", "registryId": "vr.tr.merit-good", "name": "merit good", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "PHY.OBJ" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q109972/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.merit-good", "name": "merit good", "purpose": "Enable an agent to assess why a good or service is treated as a merit good, identify the consumption shortfall being claimed, and evaluate justified ways to address it.", "definition": "A merit good is a good or service judged on normative grounds to warrant greater consumption or provision than individuals would choose or obtain through the market alone.", "scope_statement": "This model owns merit-good status as a context-dependent economic and normative classification of a good or service, including whose consumption is considered insufficient, against which benchmark, and on what evidence; it does not treat merit as an intrinsic physical property.", "in_scope": [ "The good or service, population, jurisdiction and period to which a merit-good claim applies", "The value judgment and authority supporting a preferred level of consumption", "Evidence of a shortfall between actual consumption and the stated benchmark", "Information, behavioral and access mechanisms proposed to explain the shortfall", "Policy options, distributional effects and grounds for revising the classification" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Physical specifications and lifecycle management of the underlying product", "Detailed operation of education, healthcare or other service providers", "Public-good classification based solely on rivalry and excludability", "Externality accounting unrelated to the merit-good claim", "Complete tax, subsidy or regulatory program administration" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A merit-good claim identifies consumption considered desirable beyond what unaided consumer choice produces; desirability alone does not establish a consumption shortfall.", "The classification requires an identifiable evaluative standpoint, such as informed individual welfare or a stated social judgment, rather than a claim that the object is inherently meritorious.", "Non-rivalry and non-excludability are not required: a merit good may be privately consumed and sold.", "Positive externalities can support intervention but do not by themselves define merit-good status; the consumption judgment must be recorded separately.", "Public funding or provision does not establish merit-good status without a stated rationale for encouraging consumption." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Underlying good or service", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Reference to the good or service and its relevant quality level", "why_it_matters": "Merit status attaches to a specified consumption opportunity, not automatically to every variant of a product or service." }, { "name": "Classification context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Population, jurisdiction, period and asserting institution or author", "why_it_matters": "The judgment may differ across communities, circumstances and time." }, { "name": "Merit rationale", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Informed-preference welfare; behavioral correction; collective value judgment; mixed; disputed", "why_it_matters": "Different rationales require different evidence and raise different questions about autonomy." }, { "name": "Consumption shortfall", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Benchmark minus observed consumption, using matched units such as participation percentage points, service episodes per person per year or quantity per person per period", "why_it_matters": "Makes the claimed underconsumption explicit and distinguishes a measured gap from an assertion." }, { "name": "Shortfall mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Information gap; behavioral bias; affordability constraint; availability constraint; spillover incentives; mixed; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Helps match an intervention to the reason consumption falls short." }, { "name": "Assessment status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Proposed; supported within stated assumptions; contested; insufficient evidence; superseded", "why_it_matters": "Prevents the agent from treating a disputed normative classification as a settled physical fact." }, { "name": "Intervention basis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to policy objectives, responsible authorities, evidence and applicable authorizations", "why_it_matters": "A merit-good designation does not itself authorize spending, compulsory consumption or restrictions on choice." } ], "affordances": [ "Record and compare attributed merit-good claims for the same good across populations and jurisdictions.", "Calculate a consumption gap when observed use and a justified benchmark have comparable units and coverage.", "Distinguish merit arguments from public-good, externality and redistribution arguments.", "Match proposed remedies to evidenced information, behavioral or access barriers.", "Compare policy options for uptake, welfare, distribution, cost and effects on choice.", "Flag unsupported benchmarks and revise an assessment when evidence or social judgments change." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain the concept and examples such as education and vaccination, with differing views.", "Distinguish merit goods from public goods in economic analysis." ], "must_not": [ "Present the classification of a good as a merit good as settled fact rather than a value judgment.", "Use the concept to justify coercing individuals without stating the policy trade-off.", "Misattribute positions on merit goods to economists or parties without evidence." ], "requires_human": [ "Recommending public spending or mandates based on merit good arguments." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "The idea rests on judgments about what is good for people, which can be paternalistic.", "Underprovision of goods like healthcare hits poorer people hardest." ], "affected_parties": [ "Taxpayers", "Low-income households", "Service users" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; governments answer for policies built on it.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "The merit good concept is used in economics and public policy when discussing goods or services considered insufficiently consumed or provided through markets.", "It helps frame arguments about public provision, subsidies and access in areas such as education and preventive services.", "Its application depends on stated social judgements about desirable consumption rather than a fixed physical category." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Misidentifying a consumption shortfall can direct public resources toward ineffective or unnecessary provision.", "Policies based on contested judgements can restrict individual choice without adequate justification.", "Poorly designed support can disproportionately benefit people who already have access and deepen inequality.", "Confusing merit good arguments with evidence of external benefits can obscure the actual justification for intervention." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No universal standard, law or official classification assigns merit good status independently of the particular policy context.", "recognition": "Merit good status is a normative economic judgement and cannot be identified from visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q109972: merit good", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q109972", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Merit good", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_good", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "merit-claim-and-boundary", "name": "Merit claim and boundary", "description": "Identifies exactly what is being classified and separates merit status from neighboring economic concepts.", "rationale": "Without an attributed and bounded claim, an agent could mistake a disputed consumption judgment for an intrinsic property.", "layers": [ { "id": "classified-consumption", "name": "Classified consumption", "description": "Defines the consumption opportunity and the people and circumstances covered by the claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "good-service-and-context", "name": "Good, service and context", "description": "Record the underlying good or service, qualifying quality level, intended consumers and temporal and jurisdictional limits.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which good or service, quality level and form of use are claimed to merit greater consumption?", "kind": "definition", "id": "good-service-and-context-q01" }, { "text": "Which population, jurisdiction and period does the claim cover, and which variants or uses does it exclude?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "good-service-and-context-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "economic-classification", "name": "Economic classification", "description": "Separates the merit claim from public-good properties, spillovers and existing government provision.", "findings": [ { "id": "independent-merit-rationale", "name": "Independent merit rationale", "description": "Make the consumption judgment explicit even where public-good properties or positive externalities also apply.", "questions": [ { "text": "What argument for encouraging consumption remains after rivalry, excludability and spillovers are described separately?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "independent-merit-rationale-q01" }, { "text": "Who explicitly classifies this good or service as a merit good, and where is that classification documented?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "independent-merit-rationale-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "valuation-and-consumption-benchmark", "name": "Valuation and consumption benchmark", "description": "Makes the preferred consumption level and its normative foundation inspectable.", "rationale": "Underconsumption is meaningful only relative to a benchmark whose assumptions and authority can be examined.", "layers": [ { "id": "evaluative-standpoint", "name": "Evaluative standpoint", "description": "Records whose welfare or values justify encouraging consumption.", "findings": [ { "id": "basis-of-desirability", "name": "Basis of desirability", "description": "Distinguish informed consumer interests from collective judgments that may depart from consumers' expressed preferences.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the merit claim based on informed individual preferences, a collective value judgment or a combination of these?", "kind": "definition", "id": "basis-of-desirability-q01" }, { "text": "Whose judgment supplies that basis, and how are affected consumers' preferences and dissent represented?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "basis-of-desirability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "benchmark-and-gap", "name": "Benchmark and gap", "description": "Defines the preferred consumption level and compares it with observed use.", "findings": [ { "id": "comparable-consumption-shortfall", "name": "Comparable consumption shortfall", "description": "Record benchmark and actual consumption with matching population, time, quality and quantity definitions, including uncertainty.", "questions": [ { "text": "What consumption level is proposed as desirable, in what units, and what evidence or deliberative decision supports it?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparable-consumption-shortfall-q01" }, { "text": "How far does observed consumption fall below that benchmark after differences in eligibility, need and quality are accounted for?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparable-consumption-shortfall-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "underconsumption-mechanisms", "name": "Underconsumption mechanisms", "description": "Examines why consumption may fall short and whether the proposed explanation is supported.", "rationale": "A consumption gap alone does not show whether information, incentives, access or the benchmark itself should change.", "layers": [ { "id": "information-and-choice", "name": "Information and choice", "description": "Examines claims that consumers misperceive benefits or make choices inconsistent with their own considered aims.", "findings": [ { "id": "perceived-and-considered-benefits", "name": "Perceived and considered benefits", "description": "Record evidence for information gaps or behavioral mechanisms without treating every refusal to consume as an error.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows that consumers misunderstand benefits, costs or delayed consequences, or act against their own considered preferences?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "perceived-and-considered-benefits-q01" }, { "text": "How is a correctable information or behavioral problem distinguished from an informed decision to decline consumption?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "perceived-and-considered-benefits-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-incentives", "name": "Access and incentives", "description": "Examines practical barriers and differences between private and wider benefits.", "findings": [ { "id": "constraints-and-spillovers", "name": "Constraints and spillovers", "description": "Separate inability to obtain the good from unwillingness to consume it, and record spillover arguments as distinct supporting mechanisms.", "questions": [ { "text": "How much of the shortfall is associated with price, income, availability, travel, time or eligibility barriers?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "constraints-and-spillovers-q01" }, { "text": "Which benefits accrue to consumers and which to others, and how does that distinction affect the explanation for low uptake?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "constraints-and-spillovers-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "intervention-and-reassessment", "name": "Intervention and reassessment", "description": "Connects the merit claim to proportionate policy options and evidence for retaining or revising them.", "rationale": "Encouraging consumption can impose costs and restrict choice, so the model must support comparison, authorization checks and reassessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "remedy-and-authority", "name": "Remedy and authority", "description": "Matches intervention design to the supported mechanism and records the basis for acting.", "findings": [ { "id": "justified-policy-choice", "name": "Justified policy choice", "description": "Compare information provision, subsidies, access expansion, public provision or requirements against the diagnosed shortfall and effects on choice.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which intervention addresses the evidenced cause of underconsumption, and what less restrictive alternatives could achieve the same objective?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-policy-choice-q01" }, { "text": "What authority permits the proposed intervention, and what protections apply to refusal, exceptions and unequal burdens?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-policy-choice-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "outcomes-and-revision", "name": "Outcomes and revision", "description": "Evaluates whether increased consumption delivers the benefits used to justify intervention.", "findings": [ { "id": "benefit-distribution-and-review", "name": "Benefit distribution and review", "description": "Track outcomes beyond uptake, including service quality, distribution, costs and unintended effects, with explicit revision criteria.", "questions": [ { "text": "Relative to a credible comparison, how does the intervention change consumption, relevant welfare outcomes, costs and their distribution across affected groups?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "benefit-distribution-and-review-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence would trigger changing the consumption benchmark, redesigning the intervention or withdrawing the merit-good assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "benefit-distribution-and-review-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": [ "The conventional sense is an economic concept; the supplied PHY.OBJ domain should be checked because merit goods include services.", "The concept is associated with Richard Musgrave; accounts differ over the roles of paternalism, imperfect information, and collective values.", "Education and preventive healthcare are common examples, but merit-good status is a normative classification rather than an intrinsic physical property." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of merit good 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": [ "Justifying public provision or subsidies for education.", "Supporting access to preventive healthcare.", "Informing arguments for public support of libraries and cultural services.", "Evaluating interventions where consumers may underestimate long-term benefits." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of merit good 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": [ "Paternalistic policies may override informed individual preferences.", "Disagreement about what deserves support can conceal contested value judgments.", "Subsidies may disproportionately benefit people who would have purchased the service anyway.", "Provision can increase without achieving the intended benefits if quality or access is poor." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of merit good 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": [ "Which goods count as meritorious, and how governments support them, varies with political values and institutional arrangements." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of merit good 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": "public good", "difference": "A public good is defined by non-rivalry and non-excludability; a merit good is defined by a normative judgment about desirable consumption or provision." }, { "name": "positive externality", "difference": "A positive externality is a benefit to third parties not fully reflected in market transactions; merit-good status need not depend on such benefits." }, { "name": "demerit good", "difference": "A demerit good is judged to warrant less consumption than individuals would otherwise choose." }, { "name": "private good", "difference": "A private good is rival and excludable; it can also be a merit good because the classifications concern different properties." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of merit good this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intentionally place merit good in PHY / PHY.OBJ, or should it be represented as an economic classification related to physical goods and services?", "Which authoritative definition should anchor this entry: a broad social-desirability account, an informed-preference account or an explicit plurality of interpretations?", "Which documented cases should establish the model's boundaries without implying that entire sectors are merit goods in every context?", "How should competing consumption benchmarks and disagreement between consumers and public authorities be represented and adjudicated?", "Does an existing Vercy world model already own this economic concept, requiring this registry entry to link to that model?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 13, "questions": 21 } }