{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:18:46Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 19.4, "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: 01a094e8-577e-7323-a879-0bacdb032128\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Douglas DT\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 regi", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 77.0, "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: 01a094e8-576e-7673-995a-b0d4819085b0\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Douglas DT\nRegistry id: vr.tr.douglas-dt\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": "2026-10-06T08:41:21+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-Q1252197", "registryId": "vr.tr.douglas-dt", "name": "Douglas DT", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "PHY.OBJ" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1252197/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.douglas-dt", "name": "Douglas DT", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify the Douglas DT aircraft family, distinguish its configurations, and assess what evidence is needed to interpret, preserve or evaluate a represented aircraft.", "definition": "The Douglas DT was an American single-engine biplane torpedo-bomber aircraft family developed by the Douglas Aircraft Company in the early 1920s for the United States Navy, with wheeled and float-equipped configurations.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the type-level identity and configuration logic of Douglas DT torpedo aircraft under vr.tr.douglas-dt, including variant attribution and the evidence required to assess individual examples without treating those examples as the registered thing.", "in_scope": [ "Douglas DT family identity and documented variant boundaries", "Wheel-equipped and float-equipped configurations", "Airframe, propulsion, crew and torpedo-carriage interfaces", "Configuration-dependent dimensions, performance and limitations", "Historical identification and preservation assessment" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Individual aircraft ownership, inventory and maintenance logs as independent records", "Douglas Aircraft Company as an organisation", "Torpedo design and employment tactics", "Airfields, carriers and seaplane facilities", "Related aircraft types with separate identities", "Generic aviation regulations and pilot qualifications" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Require a DT designation supported by a manufacturing, service or archival record; visual resemblance alone cannot establish membership.", "Check the single-engine biplane torpedo-aircraft configuration against the documented DT variant. The Navy identifies these features for the DT-2: [Naval History and Heritage Command](https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/dictionary-of-american-naval-aviation-squadrons-volume-2/pdfs/appen1-1.pdf).", "Treat wheels versus floats as a configuration distinction to investigate, rather than sufficient evidence of a different aircraft family.", "Use the complete designation suffix and engine-installation history to distinguish original configurations from experimental conversions.", "Check whether a related Douglas aircraft retained DT identity or acquired a separate designation; shared ancestry does not establish registry equivalence." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Documented designation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "DT family designation with full suffix; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines which configuration evidence and specifications apply." }, { "name": "Designer and actual builder", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Design organisation and manufacturing organisation linked separately to evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates aircraft identity from the organisation that manufactured an example." }, { "name": "Landing configuration", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Wheels; floats; incomplete; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Changes support interfaces, dimensions and the applicable performance evidence." }, { "name": "Installed powerplant", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Engine model, propeller and installation linked to variant and date", "why_it_matters": "Prevents experimental or replacement engines from being treated as family-wide equipment." }, { "name": "Wing configuration", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Spread; folded; partially folded; dismantled; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether quoted dimensions describe flight geometry, stowage or disassembly." }, { "name": "Dimensions", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Wingspan, length and height in m, retaining original units and configuration", "why_it_matters": "Supports identification and handling assessments without mixing wheel, float or folded configurations." }, { "name": "Mass and loading basis", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "kg, distinguishing empty, loaded and documented limiting mass", "why_it_matters": "Makes performance comparisons meaningful and exposes incompatible specification sets." }, { "name": "Crew accommodation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Number and arrangement of crew positions by variant", "why_it_matters": "Helps discriminate configurations and interpret cockpit evidence." }, { "name": "Torpedo-carriage installation", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Documented original; modified; removed; replica; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes intended role from equipment actually present." }, { "name": "Represented example status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Historical record only; original material; reconstruction; replica; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Controls whether conclusions concern historical design, surviving fabric or recreated appearance." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a photograph, drawing or aircraft record against documented DT variants.", "Compare wheel and float configurations using specifications tied to each configuration.", "Trace an engine conversion or redesignation without creating an unsupported new registry entry.", "Identify missing evidence before assigning a performance value or historical capability.", "Prepare a preservation or inspection brief focused on DT airframe and equipment interfaces." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe the history, variants and service of the Douglas DT from cited sources.", "Identify surviving examples and replicas from museum records." ], "must_not": [ "Present a replica or restoration as an original airframe.", "Recommend flying a historic airframe without airworthiness approval.", "Glorify the aircraft's weapons role without historical context." ], "requires_human": [ "Restoration decisions that would alter original historic material." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Historic military aircraft are heritage of naval aviation and the people who served.", "Restoration choices decide what history survives." ], "affected_parties": [ "Museums and heritage bodies", "Historians", "Veterans' families" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "The museum or owner holding a surviving example.", "master_systems": [ "Museum collection records" ] }, "visual_identification": [ "A single-engine biplane with two open cockpits in tandem.", "Fitted either with wheels or with twin floats for operation from water.", "Straight, equal-span wings with struts and wire bracing." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Historic airframes and materials are fragile and deteriorate.", "Inaccurate restorations spread misinformation about the type." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "This naval biplane was developed for aerial torpedo delivery, with configurations suited to operation from land or water.", "It is encountered in historical records and aviation collections concerning early naval aviation, torpedo aircraft and floatplane development." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The DT designation belongs to the torpedo aircraft category in the aircraft designation system adopted by the United States Navy in 1922." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1252197: Douglas DT", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1252197", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Douglas DT", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DT", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "dt-identity-and-lineage", "name": "DT identity and lineage", "description": "Establish what belongs to the Douglas DT entry and how variant identities are supported.", "rationale": "A named aircraft family must remain distinct from its variants, manufactured examples and separately designated relatives.", "layers": [ { "id": "designation-evidence", "name": "Designation evidence", "description": "Connect DT names to authoritative records.", "findings": [ { "id": "variant-attribution", "name": "Variant attribution", "description": "Record the evidence needed to assign a DT suffix instead of inferring it from appearance or an abbreviated caption.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which original record establishes the full DT designation of the aircraft being described?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "variant-attribution-q01" }, { "text": "Which documented features distinguish that variant from other DT configurations?", "kind": "definition", "id": "variant-attribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "builders-and-related-types", "name": "Builders and related types", "description": "Separate manufacturing provenance from design lineage and registry membership.", "findings": [ { "id": "family-membership", "name": "Family membership", "description": "Preserve builder and conversion relationships while requiring evidence before including a separately named derivative.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which organisation designed the configuration, and which organisation manufactured the referenced aircraft?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "family-membership-q01" }, { "text": "Did a conversion retain a DT designation or become a separately designated type requiring a neighbouring model?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "family-membership-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "dt-airframe-and-landing-configuration", "name": "DT airframe and landing configuration", "description": "Describe the wing arrangement and landing equipment that govern identification, support and storage.", "rationale": "DT configuration must be established before dimensions, handling requirements or historical capabilities can be compared.", "layers": [ { "id": "biplane-and-wing-fold", "name": "Biplane and wing fold", "description": "Separate flight geometry from stowage geometry.", "findings": [ { "id": "wing-geometry-and-fold-evidence", "name": "Wing geometry and fold evidence", "description": "Record variant-specific wing geometry and folding provisions; Boeing describes the DT as a folding-wing aircraft. [Boeing historical product catalogue](https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/history/pdf/Boeing_Products.pdf)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which drawing or manual establishes the wing-fold arrangement for this DT variant?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "wing-geometry-and-fold-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Do the recorded span and storage dimensions refer to spread wings, folded wings or dismantled components?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "wing-geometry-and-fold-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "wheels-and-floats", "name": "Wheels and floats", "description": "Describe landing-equipment alternatives and their attachment requirements.", "findings": [ { "id": "landing-equipment-compatibility", "name": "Landing-equipment compatibility", "description": "Require configuration evidence before treating wheel and float installations as interchangeable on a particular DT example.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which wheel or float installation is documented for the variant and date under examination?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "landing-equipment-compatibility-q01" }, { "text": "What attachment, clearance and support information must be established before proposing movement or display?", "kind": "action", "id": "landing-equipment-compatibility-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "dt-powerplant-and-performance", "name": "DT powerplant and performance", "description": "Tie propulsion and performance claims to a documented aircraft configuration.", "rationale": "Family-level specifications can obscure engine substitutions, landing-equipment differences and incompatible test conditions.", "layers": [ { "id": "engine-installation", "name": "Engine installation", "description": "Identify the engine and associated installation rather than assuming one specification covers every DT.", "findings": [ { "id": "powerplant-configuration", "name": "Powerplant configuration", "description": "Record engine identity, rated output and supporting systems against variant and conversion history.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which engine, propeller and cooling arrangement are supported by records for this DT configuration?", "kind": "definition", "id": "powerplant-configuration-q01" }, { "text": "Was the installation original, an experimental conversion or a later reconstruction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "powerplant-configuration-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "configuration-qualified-performance", "name": "Configuration-qualified performance", "description": "Attach the conditions necessary to interpret quoted speed, range and loading.", "findings": [ { "id": "comparable-performance-values", "name": "Comparable performance values", "description": "Keep historical measurements separate from estimates and avoid transferring one configuration's values to another.", "questions": [ { "text": "What engine rating, landing equipment, load and test conditions accompany each quoted performance value?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparable-performance-values-q01" }, { "text": "Does a quoted mass represent empty weight, a test loading or an authorised limit?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparable-performance-values-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "dt-mission-equipment-and-assessment", "name": "DT mission equipment and assessment", "description": "Connect crew and torpedo-carriage arrangements to historical interpretation and evidence-based assessment.", "rationale": "The torpedo-aircraft role explains DT-specific interfaces, but neither role nor appearance establishes equipment completeness or present usability.", "layers": [ { "id": "crew-and-torpedo-installation", "name": "Crew and torpedo installation", "description": "Record the configuration of crew positions and external mission equipment.", "findings": [ { "id": "mission-fit-attribution", "name": "Mission-fit attribution", "description": "Distinguish the intended torpedo role from the crew accommodation and equipment documented for a particular configuration.", "questions": [ { "text": "How many crew positions are documented for this variant, and what functions were assigned to them?", "kind": "definition", "id": "mission-fit-attribution-q01" }, { "text": "Which evidence identifies the original carriage installation and distinguishes it from removed, modified or replica equipment?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "mission-fit-attribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "surviving-fabric-and-permitted-actions", "name": "Surviving fabric and permitted actions", "description": "Translate configuration and condition evidence into appropriate assessment boundaries.", "findings": [ { "id": "dt-assessment-basis", "name": "DT assessment basis", "description": "Require evidence about wing bracing, folding joints, landing-equipment attachments and installed systems before recommending physical intervention.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which DT structural drawings and inspections establish the condition of the represented airframe and its critical attachments?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "dt-assessment-basis-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence and competent authorisation support display, movement, restoration or operation of this particular example?", "kind": "action", "id": "dt-assessment-basis-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": [ "This description is based on recall, without consulting sources.", "The entry denotes an aircraft family, not a surviving individual aircraft; dimensions, performance and payload should be specified by variant and landing-gear configuration.", "The hazards listed are consequences of the aircraft's configuration and mission, not claims about documented DT accident patterns." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Douglas DT 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": [ "DT-1: initial prototype version", "DT-2: principal production version" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Douglas DT 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": "United States Navy aircraft designation", "value_or_pattern": "DT-1; DT-2", "note": "Historical aircraft type and variant designations, not identifiers for individual airframes." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of Douglas DT 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": [ "United States Navy aerial torpedo delivery.", "Naval torpedo-bombing training and operational development.", "Water-based naval aviation using float-equipped aircraft." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Douglas DT 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": [ "As a single-engine aircraft, engine failure could require an immediate forced landing or ditching.", "Low-altitude torpedo-attack profiles reduced the height available for recovery after a stall or power loss.", "Float-equipped operation introduced hazards from rough water, float damage and water ingress." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Douglas DT 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": "Douglas World Cruiser", "difference": "A derivative of the DT adapted for long-distance flight and the 1924 world-circling expedition, rather than primarily for torpedo bombing." }, { "name": "Douglas TBD Devastator", "difference": "A later carrier-based monoplane torpedo bomber with retractable landing gear, distinct from the DT biplane family." }, { "name": "Torpedo bomber", "difference": "The broader functional aircraft category; Douglas DT identifies a particular aircraft family within it." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Douglas DT this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which DT variants, export designations and experimental conversions belong within this registry entry, and which require links to separate registered types?", "Which primary records reconcile conflicting production totals and distinguish newly built aircraft from conversions?", "What dimensions, engine ratings, crew arrangements and performance figures are authoritative for each wheel or float configuration?", "Which original DT manuals survive, and what do they establish about structural inspections, wing-fold securing provisions, consumables and maintenance limits?", "Do original DT airframes or substantial components survive, and what provenance distinguishes them from replicas or reconstructions?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 14, "questions": 22 } }