{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T08:50:23Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.8, "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: 01a094ce-8993-7220-a57e-ecf642e8ea03\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: consideration\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.PRC\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 r", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.5, "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: 01a094ce-89a0-7243-a695-59bb80ed5f76\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: consideration\nRegistry id: vr.tr.consideration\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.PRC\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:38:49+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-08T18:47:13+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "definition", "distinguishing_features", "ethics", "in_scope", "out_of_scope", "owners", "purpose", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "6fcdc0f24759ec06cbe1489c5a66d22153cff299c17429224a1e068fab2d723f" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-08T18:54:36+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1344851", "registryId": "vr.tr.consideration", "name": "consideration", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.PRC" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1344851/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.consideration", "name": "consideration", "purpose": "Enable an agent to explain contractual consideration, identify the exchange alleged to support a promise, and distinguish jurisdiction-dependent requirements from other questions of contractual enforceability.", "definition": "Consideration is something of legal value given or promised in exchange for a contractual promise, such as an act, forbearance or return promise, whose role in enforceability depends on the applicable jurisdiction and contract type.", "scope_statement": "This model covers consideration as a legal concept in contract law, including the value exchanged for a promise and its significance under the applicable law.", "in_scope": [ "The promise and the act, forbearance or return promise alleged to constitute consideration are within scope.", "The parties providing and receiving consideration and their contractual relationships are within scope.", "The distinction between legal sufficiency and economic adequacy is within scope.", "Jurisdiction-dependent treatment of past acts, existing duties and contract variations is within scope.", "The role of consideration in enforceability and applicable exceptions to its requirement is within scope." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Consideration as ordinary deliberation or examination of reasons is outside scope.", "Considerateness as a disposition toward other people is outside scope.", "A consideration understood solely as an individual reason or factor is outside scope.", "Other requirements for contractual validity are outside scope except where needed to distinguish them from consideration.", "Performance and enforcement of contracts are outside scope except where they concern consideration." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Consideration concerns legal value exchanged for a promise rather than the attention given to a decision.", "An act, forbearance or return promise may constitute consideration under the applicable law.", "Legal sufficiency does not necessarily require economic equivalence between the parties' exchanges.", "A gratuitous promise may lack consideration even when it is deliberate and sincerely intended.", "The requirement for consideration and the treatment of exceptions vary by jurisdiction and contract type." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Matter under consideration", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified question, proposal, option, claim, concern or anticipated action", "why_it_matters": "Establishes what the examination concerns and prevents conclusions from drifting to a different matter." }, { "name": "Interpretive sense", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Deliberative examination; attentive regard; ambiguous process use; outside adopted scope", "why_it_matters": "Keeps the provisional process interpretation visible where the word has competing uses." }, { "name": "Consideration status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Requested; queued; underway; paused; provisionally concluded; reopened; abandoned", "why_it_matters": "Separates a promise to consider from actual examination and from its conclusion." }, { "name": "Examining participants", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "People, groups or agents examining the matter, with their roles", "why_it_matters": "Identifies whose consideration is being described without attributing a collective judgment to every participant." }, { "name": "Consideration criteria", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Explicit or reconstructed criteria, with attribution and any stated priority", "why_it_matters": "Makes the basis for relevance and weighting inspectable." }, { "name": "Demonstrated coverage", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; specific factors examined; agreed examination requirements met; known omissions remain", "why_it_matters": "Describes coverage against stated requirements without assuming that time spent proves adequate consideration." }, { "name": "Time spent examining", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Minutes or hours, distinguishing active examination from elapsed waiting time", "why_it_matters": "Supports resource planning while remaining separate from the quality of examination." }, { "name": "Resulting disposition", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "No position; seek information; retain possibilities; recommend; defer; dismiss; refer for decision", "why_it_matters": "Records what consideration supports without equating its result with an authorised decision." } ], "affordances": [ "Frame a matter for consideration and clarify the response it may inform.", "Elicit relevant reasons, alternatives and affected interests.", "Compare how participants weigh the same matter and locate disagreements.", "Identify omitted concerns, unsupported assumptions and information that could change the assessment.", "Pause, deepen, conclude or reopen examination using explicit conditions.", "Produce an account of what was considered and refer the result to the appropriate decision maker." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain contractual consideration with attribution to the applicable jurisdiction and sources.", "Identify the exchange alleged to support a promise and state uncertainties in the available facts." ], "must_not": [ "Substitute ordinary deliberation for contractual consideration in legal analysis.", "Present one jurisdiction's consideration doctrine as universally applicable.", "Treat consideration alone as proof that a contract is enforceable.", "Assume that consideration must be money or economically equivalent value." ], "requires_human": [ "Applying consideration doctrine to a disputed contract or a decision affecting legal rights." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Incorrect consideration analysis can mislead people about contractual rights and obligations.", "Legally sufficient consideration does not by itself establish that a bargain is fair or free from exploitation." ], "affected_parties": [ "Contracting parties may be affected by consideration assessments.", "People whose rights depend on a contract may be affected." ] }, "owners": { "steward": "No one owns the legal concept; relevant legal authorities determine its application within their jurisdictions.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "In contract law, consideration concerns the value exchanged through promises, acts or forbearance in legal systems that use this doctrine.", "It is examined when assessing contractual enforceability or variations, with requirements and exceptions depending on the jurisdiction." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The Indian Contract Act, 1872, enacted by the Imperial Legislative Council, defines consideration in section 2(d) and addresses agreements without consideration in section 25." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Confusing legal consideration with ordinary deliberation can produce an analysis of the wrong concept.", "Applying one jurisdiction's consideration doctrine universally can misstate contractual rights and obligations.", "Assuming that consideration must be money or economically equivalent value can lead to incorrect enforceability assessments." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Legal consideration is an abstract legal relationship that cannot be identified by visual appearance alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1344851: consideration", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1344851", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Consideration", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "matter-and-process-sense", "name": "Matter and process sense", "description": "Identifies the intended meaning of consideration and the matter receiving examination.", "rationale": "The entry has no definition, and confusing an examination with a reason, courtesy or contractual exchange would produce a different model.", "layers": [ { "id": "meaning-in-context", "name": "Meaning in context", "description": "Records the interpretation adopted for this instance and the evidence supporting it.", "findings": [ { "id": "adopted-process-interpretation", "name": "Adopted process interpretation", "description": "Record whether consideration denotes weighing a matter, attending to a concern or an unresolved use, with attribution rather than a presumed universal definition.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the speaker or governing practice mean by 'consideration' here?", "kind": "definition", "id": "adopted-process-interpretation-q01" }, { "text": "What contextual evidence distinguishes this activity from a contractual exchange or an individual reason?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "adopted-process-interpretation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "framing-the-matter", "name": "Framing the matter", "description": "Defines the question or concern under examination and the response it could inform.", "findings": [ { "id": "examination-target", "name": "Examination target", "description": "Record the matter as presented, any reframing and the limits of the examination.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which specific proposal, possibility or concern is being considered?", "kind": "definition", "id": "examination-target-q01" }, { "text": "Would resolving the framed question address the original concern, or has the examination shifted to another matter?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "examination-target-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "participants-and-regard", "name": "Participants and regard", "description": "Records who examines the matter and whose concerns receive attention.", "rationale": "An account of consideration must distinguish the examiner's viewpoint from the interests of people affected by the eventual response.", "layers": [ { "id": "responsibility-for-examination", "name": "Responsibility for examination", "description": "Identifies who undertakes consideration and how contributions are combined.", "findings": [ { "id": "examiner-and-contributor-roles", "name": "Examiner and contributor roles", "description": "Separate responsibility for examining the matter from providing evidence, advising and holding decision authority.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who is actually examining the matter, and who has only submitted material for consideration?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "examiner-and-contributor-roles-q01" }, { "text": "How may participants challenge an account that attributes a shared assessment to them?", "kind": "action", "id": "examiner-and-contributor-roles-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "attention-to-affected-interests", "name": "Attention to affected interests", "description": "Makes visible which affected interests enter the examination and through whose account.", "findings": [ { "id": "represented-and-omitted-concerns", "name": "Represented and omitted concerns", "description": "Record affected parties' stated concerns separately from concerns inferred on their behalf, including known omissions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Whose concerns were expressed directly, and whose were interpreted by someone else?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "represented-and-omitted-concerns-q01" }, { "text": "Which potentially affected interests have not yet received examination?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "represented-and-omitted-concerns-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "reasons-and-weighing", "name": "Reasons and weighing", "description": "Captures the substantive material examined and how it bears on the matter.", "rationale": "A list of inputs does not show how consideration occurred; the model must capture relevance, counterarguments and weighting.", "layers": [ { "id": "relevance-of-inputs", "name": "Relevance of inputs", "description": "Relates evidence, concerns and assumptions to the question under examination.", "findings": [ { "id": "reasons-admitted-or-set-aside", "name": "Reasons admitted or set aside", "description": "Record why a factor bears on the matter, its supporting material and any reason for excluding it.", "questions": [ { "text": "How does each admitted reason bear on the matter being considered?", "kind": "definition", "id": "reasons-admitted-or-set-aside-q01" }, { "text": "Which reasons were set aside, by whom, and on what basis?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reasons-admitted-or-set-aside-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "comparison-and-conflict", "name": "Comparison and conflict", "description": "Records how competing reasons or possibilities are examined without requiring numerical scoring.", "findings": [ { "id": "weighting-and-counterarguments", "name": "Weighting and counterarguments", "description": "Capture stated priorities, objections and unresolved conflicts, including disagreements over whether factors can be compared.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes one reason more compelling than another for each participant?", "kind": "definition", "id": "weighting-and-counterarguments-q01" }, { "text": "Which counterargument or alternative could change the provisional assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "weighting-and-counterarguments-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "depth-and-sufficiency", "name": "Depth and sufficiency", "description": "Assesses what examination is demonstrated and whether further consideration is warranted.", "rationale": "Claims that a matter received consideration need an operational basis, while adequate depth depends on the matter and its context.", "layers": [ { "id": "evidence-of-examination", "name": "Evidence of examination", "description": "Distinguishes claimed consideration from observable engagement with the matter.", "findings": [ { "id": "demonstrated-engagement", "name": "Demonstrated engagement", "description": "Record available indicators such as addressed objections, compared possibilities or revised assessments, while leaving unobserved mental activity uncertain.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows engagement with the substance beyond receipt, acknowledgment or repetition?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "demonstrated-engagement-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts of the claimed examination are documented, self-reported or unknown?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "demonstrated-engagement-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "proportionate-examination", "name": "Proportionate examination", "description": "Relates examination requirements to consequences, uncertainty and available resources.", "findings": [ { "id": "sufficiency-and-stopping-conditions", "name": "Sufficiency and stopping conditions", "description": "Record the locally justified requirements for sufficient consideration and the gaps that remain when examination stops.", "questions": [ { "text": "What examination is required before concluding consideration in this context, and who sets that requirement?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "sufficiency-and-stopping-conditions-q01" }, { "text": "Would further examination plausibly change the assessment enough to justify its time or cost?", "kind": "action", "id": "sufficiency-and-stopping-conditions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "disposition-and-reconsideration", "name": "Disposition and reconsideration", "description": "Connects the course of consideration to its provisional result and possible reopening.", "rationale": "Consideration can end without a decision, and a concluded examination may need to resume when its basis changes.", "layers": [ { "id": "course-and-result", "name": "Course and result", "description": "Tracks whether examination is active, interrupted or concluded and what follows from it.", "findings": [ { "id": "consideration-status-and-disposition", "name": "Consideration status and disposition", "description": "Record the current state, resulting assessment and any handoff for decision without treating examination as approval.", "questions": [ { "text": "Has substantive consideration begun, paused or concluded, and what supports that status?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "consideration-status-and-disposition-q01" }, { "text": "Does the result support further inquiry, a recommendation, deferral or referral to someone with decision authority?", "kind": "action", "id": "consideration-status-and-disposition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "grounds-for-reopening", "name": "Grounds for reopening", "description": "Identifies changes that would make the previous examination insufficient or outdated.", "findings": [ { "id": "reconsideration-triggers", "name": "Reconsideration triggers", "description": "Record new evidence, overlooked concerns, changed circumstances or challenged assumptions that warrant renewed examination.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which changes would undermine the basis on which consideration was concluded?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reconsideration-triggers-q01" }, { "text": "Who should reopen the matter when a trigger occurs, and which parts require fresh examination?", "kind": "action", "id": "reconsideration-triggers-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; the process interpretation is inferred from ACT.PRC and should be checked against the registry's intended meaning.", "The listed kinds are descriptive distinctions, not a canonical taxonomy.", "There is no single general-purpose measurement of consideration; time spent, information examined, and reasons articulated are context-dependent proxies." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of consideration 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": [ "Practical consideration of possible actions", "Evidential consideration of a claim", "Evaluative consideration of merits and drawbacks", "Collective consideration through discussion" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of consideration 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": [ "Assessing alternatives before making a decision", "Examining evidence before accepting or rejecting a claim", "Reviewing proposals in committees and organisations", "Taking affected parties' interests into account" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of consideration 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": [ "Selective attention to evidence that supports an existing preference", "Overlooking relevant alternatives, consequences, or affected parties", "Treating a matter as considered without substantively examining it", "Prolonging examination until timely action becomes impossible", "Allowing dominant participants to narrow collective examination" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of consideration 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": "deliberation", "difference": "Deliberation usually involves sustained weighing of reasons or alternatives; consideration can be brief and need not compare alternatives." }, { "name": "attention", "difference": "Attention selects or maintains a focus; consideration involves examining the matter attended to." }, { "name": "decision", "difference": "A decision settles a choice or commitment; consideration can end without settling anything." }, { "name": "a consideration", "difference": "A consideration is a factor or reason that bears on a judgment; consideration as a process is the activity of examining such factors." }, { "name": "considerateness", "difference": "Considerateness concerns regard for others' feelings or interests; the process described here can concern any matter." }, { "name": "contractual consideration", "difference": "Contractual consideration is a distinct legal concept concerning an exchange supporting a promise, rather than the activity of examining a matter." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of consideration this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend deliberative examination, attentive regard for others, contractual consideration or another sense, and what source establishes that intention?", "Which reference works or schools distinguish consideration from deliberation, reflection and attention, and where do their definitions disagree?", "What minimum engagement counts as consideration in ordinary, organisational and automated settings, especially when examination is brief or unrecorded?", "Which operational measures can assess substantive consideration without mistaking duration, documentation volume or stated intent for quality?", "Should attentive regard and evaluative weighing remain within this entry's scope, and how does the surrounding registry allocate their neighbouring concepts?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 25 } }