{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T09:32:05Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00572662, "turns": 1, "seconds": 19.7, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 111.8, "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: 01a07b34-364e-7ff3-a864-c1413f720eeb\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: weak interaction\nRegistry id: vr.tr.weak-interaction\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry:" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T11:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:14:57+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", "3 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q11418", "registryId": "vr.tr.weak-interaction", "name": "weak interaction", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q11418/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.weak-interaction", "name": "weak interaction", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise weak-interaction contributions to physical processes, assess the evidence and applicable predictions, and select justified calculations or observations.", "definition": "The weak interaction is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature: a short-range, parity-violating force mediated by massive W and Z bosons that changes fermion flavour and is responsible for beta decay and related processes.", "scope_statement": "For vr.tr.weak-interaction, this model owns the identification, physical conditions, observable consequences and evidential status of weak-interaction contributions; its state describes a specified process and assessment, rather than treating a fundamental interaction as an object with a lifecycle.", "in_scope": [ "Charged-current and neutral-current contributions to decays, scattering and particle production.", "Initial and final particle states, exchanged quantum numbers and relevant flavour relationships.", "Kinematic accessibility, suppression mechanisms and the validity of the chosen theoretical description.", "Rates, branching fractions, cross sections and symmetry-sensitive observables.", "Evidence supporting weak attribution, competing contributions and justified next investigative actions." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete particle identities and intrinsic properties, owned by particle models.", "Nuclear structure and isotope inventories, except their required inputs to weak-process predictions.", "Pure electromagnetic and strong processes, except as backgrounds or interfering contributions.", "Neutrino mass generation and vacuum oscillation dynamics, except their interfaces with weak production and detection.", "Detector construction, accelerator operation and laboratory safety procedures.", "The complete electroweak symmetry-breaking mechanism and speculative extensions as independently established interactions." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Require evidence for a W- or Z-mediated contribution, or its effective low-energy representation; a small measured force or rare event alone does not identify the weak interaction. [CERN: Standard Model](https://home.web.cern.ch/science/physics/standard-model/)", "Test whether a fermion vertex exchanges electric charge through a charged current or retains it through a neutral current; weak processes need not change the observed particle species. [PDG: Electroweak Model](https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-standard-model.pdf)", "For a claimed quark-flavour transition, test its compatibility with charged-current mixing or a specified higher-order mechanism rather than treating any particle transformation as weak. [PDG: Electroweak Model](https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-standard-model.pdf)", "Use process-specific parity-sensitive observables to test chiral weak couplings; do not require every weak event to exhibit a measurable asymmetry. [PDG: Electroweak Model](https://pdg.lbl.gov/2025/reviews/rpp2025-rev-standard-model.pdf)", "Check the energy regime before interpreting 'weak' as negligible: electromagnetic and weak effects become comparable at high energies. [CERN: Unified forces](https://home.web.cern.ch/science/physics/unified-forces/)" ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Process participants", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Initial and final particles or composite states, including antiparticle identity and unresolved products.", "why_it_matters": "Defines which transition is being assessed and enables conservation checks." }, { "name": "Weak contribution class", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Charged current; neutral current; combined weak contributions; unresolved.", "why_it_matters": "Selects candidate couplings and diagnostic signatures." }, { "name": "Mediator description", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Virtual W or Z; resonant W or Z; effective interaction; unresolved, with applicable perturbative order.", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an inferred exchange from being reported as direct observation of a mediator." }, { "name": "Kinematic scale", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Energy in eV, MeV or GeV; invariant momentum transfer q² in corresponding squared units, with sign convention.", "why_it_matters": "Determines accessible final states and the suitability of an approximation." }, { "name": "Flavour connection", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Participating flavours and applicable CKM or PMNS inputs, with basis and source.", "why_it_matters": "Makes flavour assignments and mixing assumptions explicit." }, { "name": "Polarisation specification", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Prepared or inferred helicity/polarisation; unpolarised; unknown, with chirality assumptions recorded separately.", "why_it_matters": "Supports interpretation of angular distributions and symmetry tests." }, { "name": "Transition accessibility", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Kinematically inaccessible; accessible; threshold-sensitive; unresolved, conditional on the specified environment.", "why_it_matters": "Separates unavailable channels from accessible channels with small probabilities." }, { "name": "Weak decay partial rate", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "s^-1, or partial width in energy units with conversion convention and uncertainty.", "why_it_matters": "Quantifies a decay channel without confusing it with the total decay rate." }, { "name": "Scattering cross section", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "m², barn or submultiples; differential variables, beam spectrum and cuts specified.", "why_it_matters": "Supports yield estimates and meaningful comparison between measurements." }, { "name": "Branching fraction", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Dimensionless fraction from 0 to 1, with channel definition and uncertainty.", "why_it_matters": "Relates a weak decay channel to competing decay pathways." }, { "name": "Attribution status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Predicted; candidate observation; supported contribution; upper limit; disfavoured explanation; unresolved.", "why_it_matters": "Controls whether an agent may classify, constrain or only propose a weak interpretation." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a specified process by its supported charged-current and neutral-current contributions.", "Check proposed channels against conservation laws, thresholds and explicitly stated selection rules.", "Choose a suitable effective or full electroweak calculation and identify missing physical inputs.", "Estimate rates or yields under declared conditions while propagating relevant uncertainties.", "Compare weak predictions with competing explanations and select discriminating observables.", "Recommend a calculation, measurement or external specialist model needed to resolve an attribution." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain the weak interaction in general terms with reliable sources.", "Distinguish established physics from open questions." ], "must_not": [ "Present speculative claims as established physics.", "Confuse the weak interaction with the strong interaction.", "Use the concept to promote pseudoscience about radiation." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing claims of new physics." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Accurate physics education builds trust in science.", "Radioactive decay knowledge is tied to nuclear safety." ], "affected_parties": [ "Students", "The public" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; it is a feature of nature.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "The weak interaction is used to explain beta decay, neutrino interactions and particle processes that change fermion flavour.", "It is encountered in nuclear physics, particle experiments and models of stellar reactions.", "It explains many radioactive decays of fission products, while nuclear fission itself is not classified as a weak-interaction process." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Beta decay can generate ionizing radiation that harms tissue or damages sensitive equipment.", "Ignoring radioactive daughter products can underestimate how radiation hazards change over time.", "Misidentifying fission as a weak-interaction process can lead to incorrect physical models and predictions." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No standard or regulation applies to the weak interaction itself, although radioactive materials and experimental facilities have applicable requirements.", "recognition": "The weak interaction has no directly visible appearance and is identified through measured decay and scattering behavior." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "pdg-electroweak", "title": "Review of Particle Physics: Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics", "url": "https://pdg.lbl.gov/", "what_it_supports": "Standard-model definition of the weak/electroweak interaction, W/Z mediation, charged vs neutral currents, and measured couplings.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q11418: weak interaction", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11418", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Weak interaction", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "weak-process-identity", "name": "Weak process identity", "description": "Record the physical transition and the specific weak contribution being asserted.", "rationale": "An agent must identify an interaction mechanism within a process, rather than label every rare decay or invisible final state as weak.", "layers": [ { "id": "transition-participants", "name": "Transition participants", "description": "Specify the states before and after the interaction.", "findings": [ { "id": "resolved-transition", "name": "Resolved transition", "description": "Record the reaction or decay, distinguishing observed products from inferred particles and constituent-level interpretations.", "questions": [ { "text": "What initial and final states define this channel, including neutrinos, antiparticles and unresolved radiation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "resolved-transition-q01" }, { "text": "Which participants were measured directly, inferred from missing quantities or supplied by a theoretical interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "resolved-transition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "current-and-mediator", "name": "Current and mediator", "description": "Identify the weak-current structure without overstating what was observed.", "findings": [ { "id": "weak-mechanism-assignment", "name": "Weak mechanism assignment", "description": "Record charged-current, neutral-current or combined attribution and whether the mediator is virtual, resonant or represented effectively.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which vertices or effective operators support the proposed weak-current assignment?", "kind": "definition", "id": "weak-mechanism-assignment-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this mechanism from an electromagnetic, strong or instrumental explanation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "weak-mechanism-assignment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "channel-access-and-suppression", "name": "Channel access and suppression", "description": "Record whether a proposed weak transition can occur and what controls its suppression.", "rationale": "A channel can be inaccessible, suppressed or experimentally unseen for different reasons that require different agent decisions.", "layers": [ { "id": "kinematic-and-conservation-checks", "name": "Kinematic and conservation checks", "description": "Assess the proposed transition against its available energy and conserved quantities.", "findings": [ { "id": "channel-accessibility", "name": "Channel accessibility", "description": "Record threshold calculations and conservation checks at the level appropriate to free particles, bound states or a medium.", "questions": [ { "text": "Do the specified states conserve electric charge, energy, momentum and angular momentum?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "channel-accessibility-q01" }, { "text": "What energy release or collision energy is available after relevant masses, binding energies and environmental effects are included?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "channel-accessibility-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "flavour-and-selection-rules", "name": "Flavour and selection rules", "description": "Identify the assumptions behind an allowed, forbidden or suppressed label.", "findings": [ { "id": "suppression-explanation", "name": "Suppression explanation", "description": "Record candidate mixing, helicity, phase-space, loop or nuclear-selection effects separately from an absolute prohibition.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which flavour factors, spin constraints or matrix elements control this channel in the adopted theory?", "kind": "definition", "id": "suppression-explanation-q01" }, { "text": "Does 'forbidden' mean kinematically impossible, absent at a specified perturbative order or suppressed under a named selection-rule convention?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "suppression-explanation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "electroweak-regime-and-calculation", "name": "Electroweak regime and calculation", "description": "Record the physical scales, approximation and inputs that make a weak-process prediction usable.", "rationale": "The agent needs a defensible calculation regime and must know when external nuclear or hadronic inputs limit precision.", "layers": [ { "id": "scale-and-propagator-treatment", "name": "Scale and propagator treatment", "description": "Specify the energy regime and mediator treatment.", "findings": [ { "id": "applicable-description", "name": "Applicable description", "description": "Record the chosen effective or explicit-mediator description and the accuracy required for the intended decision.", "questions": [ { "text": "What momentum-transfer and invariant-mass ranges must the calculation cover?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "applicable-description-q01" }, { "text": "At the required accuracy, is the selected effective interaction adequate, or must mediator propagation, widths and radiative corrections be retained?", "kind": "action", "id": "applicable-description-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "couplings-and-composite-inputs", "name": "Couplings and composite inputs", "description": "Connect the prediction to traceable parameters and target-dependent inputs.", "findings": [ { "id": "prediction-input-basis", "name": "Prediction input basis", "description": "Record adopted coupling and mixing inputs, parameter conventions, and any form factors, parton distributions or nuclear matrix elements.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which parameter determinations and composite-state calculations supply this prediction, and what versions and conventions do they use?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "prediction-input-basis-q01" }, { "text": "Which input uncertainties or correlations limit the comparison with observation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "prediction-input-basis-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "weak-observables-and-attribution", "name": "Weak observables and attribution", "description": "Record measurable consequences and how strongly they support a weak interpretation.", "rationale": "A predicted weak contribution becomes actionable through defined observables and an explicit account of competing contributions.", "layers": [ { "id": "rates-and-event-yields", "name": "Rates and event yields", "description": "Relate theoretical transition probabilities to reported measurements.", "findings": [ { "id": "normalised-channel-strength", "name": "Normalised channel strength", "description": "Record partial decay rates or cross sections with channel definitions, acceptance, exposure and uncertainties.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which rate, width, branching fraction or cross section is measured, and over what final-state and kinematic definition?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "normalised-channel-strength-q01" }, { "text": "What flux, target population, luminosity, efficiency or live-time information is needed to translate that quantity into an event yield?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "normalised-channel-strength-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "competing-and-interfering-contributions", "name": "Competing and interfering contributions", "description": "Assess whether the measurement isolates weak physics or constrains a combined process.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-confidence", "name": "Attribution confidence", "description": "Record backgrounds, interference treatment and the inferential basis for claiming a weak contribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which alternative mechanisms produce the same signature, and what observations constrain them?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-confidence-q01" }, { "text": "Is the reported weak component separately defined by a consistent calculation, or must the observable be interpreted using combined amplitudes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-confidence-q02" }, { "text": "Does the evidence support a measured contribution, a candidate interpretation or only an upper limit?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "attribution-confidence-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "symmetry-tests-and-next-actions", "name": "Symmetry tests and next actions", "description": "Record symmetry-sensitive tests and the evidence needed before revising a weak-process interpretation.", "rationale": "Weak-interaction investigations require process-specific tests and disciplined handling of deviations from predictions.", "layers": [ { "id": "polarisation-and-conjugate-comparisons", "name": "Polarisation and conjugate comparisons", "description": "Define the measurements used to investigate parity or CP behaviour.", "findings": [ { "id": "symmetry-observable-definition", "name": "Symmetry observable definition", "description": "Record polarisation preparations, angular conventions and particle-antiparticle comparisons needed to interpret an asymmetry.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which angular, polarisation or conjugate-channel observable tests the claimed symmetry property?", "kind": "definition", "id": "symmetry-observable-definition-q01" }, { "text": "What acceptance, production or matter-related asymmetries must be controlled before interpreting the result?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "symmetry-observable-definition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-investigation", "name": "Interpretation and investigation", "description": "Connect uncertainty and discrepancies to proportionate next steps.", "findings": [ { "id": "justified-next-step", "name": "Justified next step", "description": "Record what can presently be concluded and which calculation, control sample or independent measurement would change that conclusion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which additional observable or improved calculation would best distinguish a missing conventional contribution from the proposed anomaly?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-next-step-q01" }, { "text": "What evidential threshold and unresolved dependencies govern whether the agent may classify the process, report a constraint or recommend further investigation?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-next-step-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-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Charged-current weak interaction (W± exchange; flavour-changing, e.g. beta decay, muon decay)", "Neutral-current weak interaction (Z0 exchange; flavour-conserving, e.g. neutrino scattering)", "Fermi (vector) transitions vs Gamow-Teller (axial-vector) transitions in nuclear beta decay", "Leptonic, semileptonic, and nonleptonic weak processes", "CP-violating weak processes (CKM/PMNS phases; kaon, B-meson, and neutrino sectors)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of weak interaction this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend 'weak interaction' to cover the full weak gauge sector, including boson self-interactions, or primarily weak contributions to matter transitions?", "Which existing Vercy models already own electroweak unification, particle mixing and nuclear decay, and what references will prevent duplicate ownership?", "What accuracy-dependent criteria should govern switching from effective low-energy descriptions to explicit electroweak calculations across supported process families?", "Which sourced selection-rule conventions and nuclear or hadronic calculations are required before this model can support quantitative decisions about composite targets?", "What domain-specific evidence standards should distinguish candidate weak attribution, established contributions and credible deviations from the adopted theory?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 11, "questions": 22 } }