{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T11:15:59Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 26.3, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\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: 01a07b93-f121-7f70-801f-67ab108719ae\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: apartheid\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 210 things:\n# Batch 001: 1001 regist", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 72.1, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\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: 01a07b93-f119-7c13-b1a0-1cb79cdd2217\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: apartheid\nRegistry id: vr.tr.apartheid\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCont" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T11:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:15:58+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "standards_and_regulation" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:05:13+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "definition", "distinguishing_features", "ethics", "in_scope", "out_of_scope", "owners", "purpose", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "5d5c32437d75ea6730166a0201a80270d30cb03340afdb34af6781d0721a10f9" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:28+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q11409", "registryId": "vr.tr.apartheid", "name": "apartheid", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q11409/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.apartheid", "name": "apartheid", "purpose": "Enable an agent to explain South Africa's historical apartheid system, its institutions, enforcement, resistance, dismantling and continuing effects using attributed historical evidence.", "definition": "Apartheid denotes the institutionalised system of racial segregation and white minority domination enforced in South Africa from 1948 to 1994.", "scope_statement": "This model covers the historical South African apartheid system, including its racial classifications, institutions, affected populations, enforcement, resistance, dismantling and legacy.", "in_scope": [ "The historical meaning and development of apartheid in South Africa are in scope.", "The construction of racial groups and allocation of political power, rights and status under South African apartheid are in scope.", "Interlocking apartheid institutions governing residence, movement, land, labour, education and family life are in scope.", "Coercive enforcement, resistance and mechanisms that sustained the South African system are in scope.", "Historical evidence, attribution, contested interpretations, dismantling and continuing effects of the system are in scope." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Racism, prejudice and discriminatory incidents considered independently of South African apartheid are outside this model.", "A complete history of South Africa is outside this model.", "Classification of other regimes or current policies as apartheid is outside this model.", "The international crime of apartheid and other international crimes as separate legal determinations are outside this model.", "Detailed criminal procedure, sanctions administration and reparations programme design are outside this model." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The subject is the historical South African system of racial segregation and white minority domination enforced from 1948 to 1994.", "Separation, exclusion and coercion operated together across political, residential, economic and social institutions.", "The regime imposed racial classifications that must be described as historical constructions rather than biological facts.", "Historical identification of this regime is distinct from applying the term to other societies or making a legal determination.", "Accounts of apartheid distinguish its institutions and enforcement from resistance, dismantling and continuing effects." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Assessment sense", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "historical identification | analytical classification | legal allegation | legal determination", "why_it_matters": "Prevents historical analogy, scholarly interpretation and adjudication from being reported as equivalent conclusions." }, { "name": "Applicable interpretive framework", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named historical account, scholarly definition or legal instrument, with version and interpreting authority", "why_it_matters": "Makes the criteria behind an assessment explicit and permits disagreements to be traced to different definitions." }, { "name": "Population, territory and period", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified populations and territorial units, with assessment start and end dates", "why_it_matters": "Avoids generalising findings beyond the people, places and period supported by evidence." }, { "name": "Racial classification mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicit legal classification | administrative attribution | socially enforced racialisation | mixed | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Records how the relevant groups are constituted and how membership acquires institutional consequences." }, { "name": "Distribution of governing power", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Group-specific control of legislation, executive authority, policing, courts and political participation", "why_it_matters": "Connects unequal treatment to the capacity to impose and preserve domination." }, { "name": "Institutional reach", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Documented mechanisms in political participation, residence, movement, land, labour, education and family life", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether restrictions form an interacting system and where evidence remains incomplete." }, { "name": "Differential treatment", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Domain-specific rights comparisons and group-disaggregated rates, with denominators, dates and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Supports examination of unequal treatment without reducing the assessment to an unsupported composite score." }, { "name": "Evidence of maintenance intent", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Not assessed | direct evidence identified | inference supported | contested | insufficient evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates evidence of purpose from the observation that unequal outcomes exist." }, { "name": "System trajectory", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Formation | consolidation | reproduction | partial dismantling | formal abolition with contested continuity | historical closure", "why_it_matters": "Allows institutional change and persistent effects to be assessed separately." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare an alleged instance against explicit historical, analytical or legal criteria and report unresolved requirements.", "Trace how racial classification produces differential rights through linked institutions and enforcement practices.", "Identify missing evidence, competing explanations and contradictions in an apartheid assessment.", "Compare periods or territories without assuming that similar outcomes arise from identical mechanisms.", "Track whether reforms remove mechanisms of domination, change their operation or leave only their accumulated effects.", "Produce an evidence-linked assessment that distinguishes allegations, documented mechanisms and authoritative determinations." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe apartheid in South Africa with sources, dates and the voices of those who lived it.", "Explain the historical system's institutions, resistance, dismantling and continuing effects with attributed evidence." ], "must_not": [ "Deny, minimize or justify apartheid or its crimes.", "Treat this historical model as a basis for classifying current states or policies as apartheid.", "Use the history to stir racial hatred.", "Publish personal data of victims or witnesses from truth commission records beyond what is public." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing school materials that address contested interpretations of South African apartheid requires human editorial review." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Apartheid caused immense suffering whose effects on wealth, land and health continue.", "Historical accounts require care with facts, sources and the experiences of people affected by the system." ], "affected_parties": [ "Survivors and their descendants are affected by how the history is represented.", "South Africans are affected by the system's continuing legacy." ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the historical system; historians, archivists and custodians of testimony preserve and interpret its record.", "master_systems": [ "Truth and Reconciliation Commission records preserve testimony and findings about the period.", "National archives preserve historical records of the system." ] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Denial and revisionism.", "Persistent inequality left by segregation." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, 1973, United Nations.", "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 7, which lists apartheid as a crime against humanity." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Apartheid is studied in South African history to explain how state institutions imposed racial segregation and white minority domination.", "The concept is used in education, archival research and public remembrance to examine restrictions on residence, movement, political participation and access to resources.", "Historical analysis distinguishes the South African system from legal determinations under international instruments." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Apartheid is an institutional system whose identification requires historical and institutional evidence rather than visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q11409: apartheid", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11409", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Apartheid", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meanings-and-thresholds", "name": "Meanings and thresholds", "description": "Establish which meaning of apartheid is being applied and what would justify that use.", "rationale": "The term can identify a historical regime, an analytical category or a legal classification, each requiring a different assessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "historical-and-analytical-senses", "name": "Historical and analytical senses", "description": "Separate the South African historical referent from broader theories of racial domination.", "findings": [ { "id": "declared-sense-and-comparison", "name": "Declared sense and comparison", "description": "Record the definition adopted, its proponents and whether historical comparison is illustrative or supplies classification criteria.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does apartheid here name the South African historical regime or a category intended to apply across societies?", "kind": "definition", "id": "declared-sense-and-comparison-q01" }, { "text": "Which scholars or institutions support the adopted definition, and which features do competing definitions require?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "declared-sense-and-comparison-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "instrument-specific-legal-assessment", "name": "Instrument-specific legal assessment", "description": "Keep legal requirements and the authority of resulting conclusions explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "legal-elements-and-status", "name": "Legal elements and status", "description": "Record the selected instrument, its applicable requirements and whether the assessment concerns state obligations, individual criminal responsibility or another legal question.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which instrument and interpretation govern this assessment, and what acts, contextual conditions and intent must be established?", "kind": "definition", "id": "legal-elements-and-status-q01" }, { "text": "Who made the legal assessment, with what jurisdiction or mandate, and is it an allegation, expert opinion or adjudicated determination?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "legal-elements-and-status-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "racialisation-and-governing-power", "name": "Racialisation and governing power", "description": "Identify how groups are constituted and how domination is organised between them.", "rationale": "Apartheid assessment requires an account of racial group formation and governing power, not simply a list of disadvantaged populations.", "layers": [ { "id": "group-construction", "name": "Group construction", "description": "Examine classification rules, imposed identities and the consequences of group membership.", "findings": [ { "id": "membership-and-racialisation", "name": "Membership and racialisation", "description": "Record who assigns membership, whether it can be challenged and how legal or social categories become racialised.", "questions": [ { "text": "How are the relevant groups identified, and what evidence establishes racialisation in this setting?", "kind": "definition", "id": "membership-and-racialisation-q01" }, { "text": "Who assigns or reviews group membership, and which rights or restrictions follow from that assignment?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "membership-and-racialisation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "political-domination", "name": "Political domination", "description": "Examine control of governing institutions and the capacity of subordinated groups to change the rules.", "findings": [ { "id": "control-and-exclusion", "name": "Control and exclusion", "description": "Map formal and effective authority, including arrangements that offer nominal representation while withholding consequential power.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which groups control legislation, coercive institutions and access to effective political participation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "control-and-exclusion-q01" }, { "text": "Can subordinated populations meaningfully alter the institutions governing them, including through any nominally autonomous authorities?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "control-and-exclusion-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutional-organisation-of-separation", "name": "Institutional organisation of separation", "description": "Trace the rules that organise territory, mobility, resources and everyday life by racialised membership.", "rationale": "The model must expose how restrictions reinforce one another rather than treating each policy as an isolated disparity.", "layers": [ { "id": "territory-residence-and-mobility", "name": "Territory, residence and mobility", "description": "Examine spatial allocation and the permissions that govern movement, residence and access.", "findings": [ { "id": "spatial-control", "name": "Spatial control", "description": "Record territorial fragmentation, displacement, residence restrictions and movement controls where evidenced.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rules determine where each group may live, own or use land, travel and return?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "spatial-control-q01" }, { "text": "How do territorial arrangements and movement permissions contribute to domination rather than merely geographic separation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "spatial-control-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "labour-services-and-social-reproduction", "name": "Labour, services and social reproduction", "description": "Examine how economic dependence and differentiated institutions reproduce racial hierarchy.", "findings": [ { "id": "linked-opportunity-restrictions", "name": "Linked opportunity restrictions", "description": "Trace connections among employment, education, public provision and family restrictions without presuming every disparity has the same cause.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which employment, schooling, service or family rules differ by group, and how are those differences enforced?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "linked-opportunity-restrictions-q01" }, { "text": "How do these rules interact with spatial and political restrictions to reproduce subordination across generations?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "linked-opportunity-restrictions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "coercion-and-system-maintenance", "name": "Coercion and system maintenance", "description": "Examine the acts, institutions and purposes through which racial domination is enforced and defended.", "rationale": "Unequal outcomes alone cannot explain the mechanisms maintaining a regime or satisfy instrument-specific requirements concerning acts and intent.", "layers": [ { "id": "enforcement-and-attribution", "name": "Enforcement and attribution", "description": "Connect coercive practices to authorities, institutional policies and affected populations.", "findings": [ { "id": "coercive-practices", "name": "Coercive practices", "description": "Record evidenced detention, forced removal, violence and other alleged qualifying acts with their institutional connections.", "questions": [ { "text": "What coercive acts are documented, against whom, and through which orders, policies or recurring practices?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "coercive-practices-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence connects these acts to maintaining racial domination, and which requirements of the selected framework do they address?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "coercive-practices-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "purpose-and-opposition", "name": "Purpose and opposition", "description": "Assess evidence of maintenance intent and responses to challenges against the hierarchy.", "findings": [ { "id": "maintenance-intent-and-repression", "name": "Maintenance intent and repression", "description": "Distinguish stated objectives, inferred purposes and observable responses to opposition, while testing competing explanations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which statements, institutional designs or policy patterns support an intent to maintain domination, and what evidence challenges that inference?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "maintenance-intent-and-repression-q01" }, { "text": "How are challenges to racial hierarchy treated, and does the pattern distinguish defence of that hierarchy from broader political repression?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "maintenance-intent-and-repression-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-change-and-remedy", "name": "Assessment, change and remedy", "description": "Maintain a contestable assessment and determine what institutional changes would alter it.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish supported conclusions from unresolved claims and assess dismantling without confusing persistent harm with continuing regime operation.", "layers": [ { "id": "evidence-and-contestation", "name": "Evidence and contestation", "description": "Organise evidence by criterion, scope and source authority, including substantive counterevidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "criterion-linked-assessment", "name": "Criterion-linked assessment", "description": "Record support and uncertainty separately for each requirement rather than collapsing them into a single confidence score.", "questions": [ { "text": "For each classification criterion, which sources support or contradict it, and what populations, territories and dates do they cover?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "criterion-linked-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Do disagreements concern facts, racial group identification, intent, territorial scope or the definition being applied?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "criterion-linked-assessment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "dismantling-and-continuity", "name": "Dismantling and continuity", "description": "Track changes in governing mechanisms alongside the accumulated effects of earlier domination.", "findings": [ { "id": "substantive-institutional-change", "name": "Substantive institutional change", "description": "Assess whether reforms remove racial classification consequences, unequal political control and coercive restrictions in practice.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which reforms have changed effective political power, movement, residence and access to resources, and for which groups?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "substantive-institutional-change-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence or institutional changes would justify revising the assessment from an operating system to a dismantled system with persistent effects?", "kind": "action", "id": "substantive-institutional-change-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": [ "No sense was supplied, so this description covers both the historical South African system and the international legal concept.", "Petty and grand apartheid are historical analytical distinctions, not separate offences under international criminal law.", "This is recall only; verify exact treaty language, jurisdictional requirements and evidence before applying the legal category to a specific situation." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of apartheid 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": [ "Petty apartheid: segregation of everyday facilities, services and social interaction.", "Grand apartheid: territorial separation, population relocation and the homeland system." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of apartheid 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": [ "International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1973.", "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 7: defines the crime of apartheid within the framework of crimes against humanity.", "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 3: requires states parties to prevent, prohibit and eradicate racial segregation and apartheid.", "Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 85: includes specified practices of apartheid among grave breaches." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of apartheid 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": [ "Historical analysis of South African legislation, institutions and resistance during the apartheid period.", "Analysis of apartheid administration in South African-controlled South West Africa, now Namibia.", "Legal assessment of alleged crimes against humanity using the elements of the applicable treaty.", "Human rights documentation of institutionalised racial domination and associated inhumane acts.", "Study of continuing inequalities in land ownership, settlement patterns, education and wealth after apartheid." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of apartheid 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": [ "Treating every instance of discrimination or segregation as sufficient to establish the international crime.", "Assuming the historical South African system and every legal definition have identical boundaries.", "Reducing apartheid to separate facilities while overlooking disenfranchisement, forced removal, labour control and state violence.", "Using racial categories created by apartheid authorities as if they were natural biological divisions.", "Treating formal legal abolition as evidence that its spatial and economic consequences disappeared." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of apartheid 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": [ "South Africa is the principal historical referent; 1948-1994 marks formal apartheid rule, although racial domination and segregation predated it.", "South African authorities also imposed apartheid in South West Africa; its history includes occupation, resistance and Namibian independence in 1990.", "Application elsewhere requires distinguishing historical comparison, political characterisation and findings under a particular legal definition." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of apartheid 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": "racial segregation", "difference": "Segregation concerns separation by race; apartheid additionally involves a system of domination, and its international criminal definition requires further elements." }, { "name": "racial discrimination", "difference": "Racial discrimination is broader and can occur without an institutionalised regime of domination or the acts required for the crime of apartheid." }, { "name": "colonialism", "difference": "Colonialism concerns external domination and control of a territory or people; apartheid concerns racial domination and need not require an overseas colonial relationship." }, { "name": "genocide", "difference": "Genocide requires intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part; apartheid centres on maintaining racial domination, although the crimes can overlap." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of apartheid this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend apartheid primarily as the historical South African regime, a general system of racial domination or a legal category, and how should those senses share one entry?", "Which historical and scholarly definitions should anchor the model, and where do they disagree about the necessity of territorial separation, economic exploitation or explicit racial legislation?", "How do relevant legal instruments and authoritative interpretations differ in their treatment of racial groups, qualifying acts, context and intent?", "What evidence is sufficient to distinguish racialised domination from inequalities associated with citizenship, ethnicity, religion or class in contested cases?", "Which criteria best distinguish continued apartheid mechanisms from structural inequalities persisting after those mechanisms have been dismantled?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }