{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:16:21Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 15.4, "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: 01a094e6-2bc5-7332-a81c-b718772600ac\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Do 10\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: PHY.OBJ\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 registere", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 74.0, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a094e6-2bbe-7363-a021-52ef321de44f\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Do 10\nRegistry id: vr.tr.do-10\nPlane / domain: PHY / PHY.OBJ\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContext for " } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:54:05+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "visual_identification" ] }, "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-Q1245806", "registryId": "vr.tr.do-10", "name": "Do 10", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "PHY.OBJ" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1245806/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.do-10", "name": "Do 10", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to identify records of the Dornier Do 10 aircraft design, distinguish prototype configurations, and judge which technical or historical conclusions the evidence supports.", "definition": "The Dornier Do 10 was a German two-seat fighter aircraft design developed in the early 1930s and built only as prototypes.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the aircraft-design identity provisionally assigned to vr.tr.do-10, its configuration distinctions, and the evidence needed to interpret prototype capabilities; the Smithsonian catalogues a technical-reference file as Dornier Do C4 (Do 10), supporting that identification without establishing the aircraft's specifications. [Smithsonian aircraft reference finding aid](https://sirismm.si.edu/EADpdfs/NASM.XXXX.1183.A.pdf)", "in_scope": [ "Do 10 designation identity and evidence connecting earlier Dornier designations", "Recognition features and configuration-dependent airframe characteristics", "Engine, propeller, and experimental installation distinctions", "Intended fighter role versus demonstrated prototype capabilities", "Attribution of technical figures and test results to specific configurations" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Individual airframe ownership, custody, and maintenance logs", "Generic principles shared by all piston-engine aircraft", "Standalone models of engines, propellers, and installed equipment", "Dornier company history beyond identification and design provenance", "Other Dornier aircraft whose names contain C, 10, or X", "Flight authorization or operational instructions for a surviving aircraft or replica" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Require an explicit Dornier Do 10 identification or a documented designation cross-reference; the bare number 10 is insufficient.", "Treat Do C4 as an archive-supported identification lead; require separate evidence before treating every C1 or C4 reference as this design.", "Test candidate photographs and drawings for the reported two-seat, single-engine parasol-monoplane arrangement; verify that recognition hypothesis against contemporary material.", "Distinguish Arabic-number Do 10 records from Roman-letter Do X records through the original caption and aircraft configuration.", "Separate evidence of an intended fighter configuration from evidence of later experimental equipment; neither automatically identifies the configuration of every prototype." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Designation attribution", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Verbatim designation linked to issuing document, date, and design or airframe", "why_it_matters": "Prevents uncertain C1/C4 equivalences from merging unrelated records." }, { "name": "Configuration identity", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Airframe identifier plus dated drawing, photograph, modification record, or test report", "why_it_matters": "Makes prototype differences explicit before comparing specifications." }, { "name": "Airframe recognition arrangement", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Documented wing placement, engine count, crew-station arrangement, and landing-gear layout; unknown permitted", "why_it_matters": "Tests whether a candidate image or description belongs to Do 10." }, { "name": "Dimensions and reference geometry", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Span and length in m; wing area in m²; configuration and source required", "why_it_matters": "Supports scale recognition and comparison without combining incompatible drawings." }, { "name": "Mass and loading basis", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "kg, with empty or loaded definition, fuel quantity, crew, and installed equipment", "why_it_matters": "Prototype performance figures are uninterpretable without their loading conditions." }, { "name": "Installed propulsion", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Engine designation, rating in kW at stated conditions, propeller identity, and installation date", "why_it_matters": "Separates engine capability from performance demonstrated by a particular installation." }, { "name": "Experimental thrust-axis arrangement", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unverified, proposed, installed, ground-tested, or flight-tested; angular travel in degrees only when documented", "why_it_matters": "Prevents reports of a tilting-engine experiment from becoming an assumed standard feature." }, { "name": "Performance evidence class", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Requirement, calculation, manufacturer claim, measured trial result, or unattributed secondary figure", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes intended capability from demonstrated behavior." }, { "name": "Historical operating basis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Dated permit, test instruction, restriction, or acceptance document and issuing authority; unknown permitted", "why_it_matters": "Avoids inventing certification or transferring historical permissions to a present-day object." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a candidate document or image as a supported, possible, or rejected Do 10 match.", "Build a dated comparison of prototype configurations without creating additional registry things.", "Compare reported dimensions and performance only after aligning configuration and measurement conditions.", "Trace a claimed modification or capability to the document that supports it.", "Identify missing evidence that blocks reconstruction, performance assessment, or interpretation of a trial." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Identify photographs or records of this two-seat fighter prototype.", "Describe its development history from documented sources, noting gaps." ], "must_not": [ "Invent specifications or service use for a type built only as prototypes.", "Present related designs as this type.", "Misuse its history to glorify a militarist regime." ], "requires_human": [ "Attributing artefacts or remains to these prototypes." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Aircraft of the early 1930s rearmament era are tied to a dark political history.", "Fabricated details distort the record." ], "affected_parties": [ "Historians", "Readers" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody: no examples survive; archives hold its records.", "master_systems": [] }, "visual_identification": [ "Two-seat monoplane fighter of the early 1930s.", "Known mainly from period photographs and documents." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Prototype testing carried high risk for test pilots." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "This aircraft design is encountered in aviation histories, archival photographs and technical records of early 1930s German fighter development.", "Researchers use its prototype records to examine experimental configurations and contemporary approaches to two-seat fighter design.", "Its limited prototype history makes configuration and date important when interpreting photographs or reported performance." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No model-specific standard, law or official classification can be confidently assigned to these historical prototypes from the supplied information." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1245806: Do 10", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1245806", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Dornier Do 10", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_10", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "designation-and-prototype-identity", "name": "Designation and prototype identity", "description": "Establish what Do 10 denotes and which records belong to it.", "rationale": "The registry has no definition, and earlier designation relationships require explicit resolution.", "layers": [ { "id": "designation-crosswalk", "name": "Designation crosswalk", "description": "Resolve names through dated documentary usage.", "findings": [ { "id": "do-10-name-boundary", "name": "Do 10 name boundary", "description": "Record designation equivalences with their evidence and confidence, retaining unresolved C1/C4 usage rather than asserting an alias chain.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which contemporary documents explicitly equate Do 10 with Do C1 or Do C4, and how are those names written?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "do-10-name-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Does each designation refer to the whole design, a development stage, or one particular airframe?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "do-10-name-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "prototype-attribution", "name": "Prototype attribution", "description": "Connect observations to identifiable aircraft and dates.", "findings": [ { "id": "airframe-configuration-link", "name": "Airframe-to-configuration link", "description": "Use registrations, factory numbers, captions, and modification records to prevent different prototype states from becoming one composite specification.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which factory numbers or registrations are securely associated with Do 10?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "airframe-configuration-link-q01" }, { "text": "Which dated configuration does each photograph, drawing, or specification describe?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "airframe-configuration-link-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "airframe-and-fighter-role", "name": "Airframe and fighter role", "description": "Define the recognition geometry and intended crew arrangement that make this design identifiable.", "rationale": "A fighter label alone cannot distinguish Do 10 from other Dornier projects or establish its actual equipment.", "layers": [ { "id": "recognition-geometry", "name": "Recognition geometry", "description": "Test the reported airframe arrangement against drawings and photographs.", "findings": [ { "id": "configuration-recognition-tests", "name": "Configuration recognition tests", "description": "Establish wing support, cockpit placement, landing gear, and major dimensions as an evidence-backed recognition pattern.", "questions": [ { "text": "Do contemporary views confirm a parasol wing, one engine, and two crew stations, and what additional visible features distinguish Do 10?", "kind": "definition", "id": "configuration-recognition-tests-q01" }, { "text": "What span, length, and wing area are documented, and do the figures describe the same configuration?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "configuration-recognition-tests-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "crew-and-role-equipment", "name": "Crew and role equipment", "description": "Separate the intended two-seat fighter role from installed and tested equipment.", "findings": [ { "id": "intended-versus-equipped-fighter", "name": "Intended versus equipped fighter", "description": "Record crew responsibilities, visibility constraints, and equipment status without treating a proposed fighter specification as a completed installation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What responsibilities were assigned to each crew station in the original requirement or design documentation?", "kind": "definition", "id": "intended-versus-equipped-fighter-q01" }, { "text": "Which role-specific equipment was proposed, installed, or tested on each identified prototype?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "intended-versus-equipped-fighter-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "propulsion-and-installation-experiments", "name": "Propulsion and installation experiments", "description": "Track powerplant configurations and investigate reported thrust-axis experiments.", "rationale": "Experimental installation changes could alter both aircraft identity in photographs and the meaning of performance claims.", "layers": [ { "id": "engine-propeller-configuration", "name": "Engine and propeller configuration", "description": "Associate powerplant evidence with the airframe state in which it applied.", "findings": [ { "id": "installed-power-basis", "name": "Installed power basis", "description": "Record exact engine and propeller identities, rating conditions, and installation changes before assigning a power figure to Do 10.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which engine and propeller combination is documented for each prototype and trial period?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "installed-power-basis-q01" }, { "text": "What power rating, rotational speed, and altitude conditions apply to that installation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "installed-power-basis-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "experimental-installation-status", "name": "Experimental installation status", "description": "Determine whether reported engine-tilting work was proposed, implemented, and demonstrated.", "findings": [ { "id": "thrust-axis-experiment-evidence", "name": "Thrust-axis experiment evidence", "description": "Keep the reported tilting installation as a research proposition until drawings or trial records establish its mechanism, extent, and use.", "questions": [ { "text": "What original evidence identifies a movable engine or thrust axis on Do 10, and to which airframe does it apply?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "thrust-axis-experiment-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What movement, controls, stops, or locking provisions were documented, and which were actually tested?", "kind": "definition", "id": "thrust-axis-experiment-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "trial-results-and-assessment-limits", "name": "Trial results and assessment limits", "description": "Determine what Do 10 demonstrated and which judgments remain unsupported.", "rationale": "Prototype specifications, intended fighter performance, and experimental results must remain distinguishable.", "layers": [ { "id": "performance-attribution", "name": "Performance attribution", "description": "Interpret numerical claims using their configuration and trial conditions.", "findings": [ { "id": "measured-capability-boundary", "name": "Measured capability boundary", "description": "Retain the distinction between requirements, estimates, and measurements for speed, climb, range, and takeoff or landing behavior.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which performance figures come from measured trials, and what mass, engine setting, altitude, and weather accompanied them?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "measured-capability-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Do any original trials support improved short-field behavior, and what baseline and measurement definition were used?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "measured-capability-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "restrictions-and-disposition", "name": "Restrictions and disposition", "description": "Connect documented defects, test permissions, and program outcomes to the claims an agent may make.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-limited-assessment", "name": "Evidence-limited assessment", "description": "Record configuration-specific limitations and documentary gaps; a historical specification alone cannot establish the condition or permitted use of an individual object.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which contemporary reports document handling problems, structural or propulsion defects, operating restrictions, or reasons for ending development?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-limited-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What additional configuration, condition, and authorization evidence would be required before assessing a claimed survivor or reconstruction for any proposed physical use?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-limited-assessment-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 identification as Dornier Do 10 is inferred from the name and physical-object domain; the registry supplies no disambiguating sense.", "This description is recalled knowledge, not source-verified research.", "Exact prototype count, engine installations, dimensions, performance and alternative designations should be checked before inclusion." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Do 10 this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Dornier aircraft designation", "value_or_pattern": "Do 10", "note": "Identifies the aircraft design, rather than an individual airframe." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of Do 10 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": [ "Prototype flight testing and evaluation of a two-seat fighter design." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Do 10 this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Crew complement", "typical_range": "2", "unit": "people" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of Do 10 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": "Two-seat fighter aircraft", "difference": "This is the broader aircraft category; Do 10 denotes a particular Dornier design." }, { "name": "Dornier Do 17", "difference": "The Do 17 was a separate twin-engine bomber design, not a variant of the Do 10." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Do 10 this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry's original external identifier confirm that vr.tr.do-10 denotes the Dornier aircraft design?", "What is the exact relationship among Do C1, Do C4, and Do 10, including the dates and authorities responsible for each designation?", "How many airframes were completed, what identifiers did they carry, and which configuration changes belonged to each?", "Which contemporary drawings and trial reports establish dimensions, engine installations, performance, and the reported tilting-engine experiment?", "What original evidence establishes development outcomes, historical operating restrictions, and the subsequent fate of the prototypes?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 13, "questions": 21 } }