{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:58:31Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23.3, "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: 01a0950c-acb7-75d0-84e8-eff2fd1b87cb\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: geognosy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 regist", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 80.7, "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: 01a0950c-aca8-7220-9a8f-3df255213dc6\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: geognosy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.geognosy\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContex" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:45:16+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-08T19:09:48+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1503122", "registryId": "vr.tr.geognosy", "name": "geognosy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1503122/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.geognosy", "name": "geognosy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise geognosy as a historically situated field of Earth knowledge, assess the evidence behind its descriptions, and translate its concepts without erasing their historical meaning.", "definition": "Geognosy is a historical field of Earth science concerned with describing the mineral and rock constitution of the Earth, especially its crust, and the spatial relationships of rock masses and strata.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the disciplinary identity of geognosy (vr.tr.geognosy, INF / INF.KNW): its historically variable concern with Earth's rocky constitution, arrangement and distribution, its observational practices, and its relationships to neighbouring fields.", "in_scope": [ "Definitions of geognosy qualified by author, language, period and intellectual tradition", "Study of rocks and mineral occurrences through their positions, associations and regional distribution", "Practices for describing exposures, recording successions and comparing rock assemblages", "Historical classifications and the evidence used to support their application", "Institutional and bibliographic evidence that identifies geognosy as a field", "Qualified mappings between geognostic concepts and modern geological terminology" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Individual rocks, minerals, deposits and geological formations as physical entities", "The full subject matter and contemporary organisation of geology", "Practitioners' biographies and professional qualifications", "Books, maps and specimen collections as independently managed artifacts", "Mining operations, mineral processing and resource investment decisions", "Earth-origin theories treated independently of their relationship to geognosy" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A historical usage or explicit definition supports the label geognosy; describing rocks alone does not establish disciplinary identity.", "Attention to the position and association of minerals within rock bodies distinguishes its relational subject matter from mineral identification alone.", "The relationship to geology must be stated using the source's convention, rather than assuming either permanent synonymy or a fixed subdisciplinary boundary.", "Descriptive accounts of rock arrangement must be distinguishable from explanations of rock origin; association with a historical school does not make every observation an endorsement of its theory.", "Historical formation names and succession classes retain their original meanings until a supported correspondence with modern units is established." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Attested disciplinary sense", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Descriptive Earth science; branch of geology; synonym of geology; other explicitly sourced sense; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents one historical definition from becoming a universal boundary." }, { "name": "Usage context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Linked author, dated source, language, region and intellectual tradition", "why_it_matters": "Makes differences between uses interpretable." }, { "name": "Subject emphasis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Rock constitution; mineral occurrence; spatial arrangement; succession; regional distribution", "why_it_matters": "Identifies which aspects of Earth knowledge a particular usage includes." }, { "name": "Observation scale", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Specimen in context; exposure; mine section; local succession; regional comparison", "why_it_matters": "Constrains how far observations can support generalisation." }, { "name": "Evidence basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Direct observation; collected specimen; measured section; mapped exposure; reported observation; theoretical inference", "why_it_matters": "Separates recorded evidence from interpretation." }, { "name": "Classification convention", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named historical classification, author, edition and applicable terminology", "why_it_matters": "Makes historical rock categories intelligible without imposing modern definitions." }, { "name": "Modern correspondence", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; supported equivalence; partial overlap; disputed; no supported correspondence", "why_it_matters": "Controls translation into contemporary geological concepts." }, { "name": "Disciplinary attestation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Dated teaching, handbook, institutional title, society record or classification entry", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes evidence of an organised field from isolated vocabulary." } ], "affordances": [ "Identify the historically appropriate sense of geognosy in a document or catalogue entry.", "Compare definitions across authors and periods while preserving incompatible boundaries.", "Trace a geognostic description to its observations, locality and classification convention.", "Separate descriptions of rock relationships from interpretations of their origins.", "Propose qualified mappings to modern geology and flag mappings requiring specialist review.", "Link to an existing model when conceptual identity is established, while retaining geognosy as an attested historical name." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe geognosy as a historical field and its role in the development of geology.", "Distinguish its theories, such as Neptunism, from modern geology." ], "must_not": [ "Present outdated geognostic theories as current science.", "Misattribute ideas to historical scientists without evidence.", "Use historical theories to support pseudoscientific claims about Earth's age." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing new historical claims about named scientists." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Accurate history of science helps people understand how knowledge changes." ], "affected_parties": [ "Students", "Historians of science", "Readers" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; it is a historical field of knowledge.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Outdated theories quoted without context can mislead readers." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Geognosy is encountered chiefly in historical geological literature, mining accounts and descriptions of rock formations.", "It provides context for interpreting how earlier investigators classified rocks, described strata and understood the distribution of mineral deposits." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No dedicated standard, law or official classification applies to geognosy as a historical field of knowledge.", "recognition": "Geognosy is an intellectual field and has no physical appearance that can establish its identity." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1503122: geognosy", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1503122", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-de", "title": "Wikipedia (de): Geognosie", "url": "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geognosie", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "historical-disciplinary-identity", "name": "Historical disciplinary identity", "description": "Establishes which historically situated meaning of geognosy is being represented.", "rationale": "The missing registry definition cannot safely be replaced with an unqualified modern synonym.", "layers": [ { "id": "attested-meanings", "name": "Attested meanings", "description": "Records definitions in their original intellectual and linguistic settings.", "findings": [ { "id": "source-qualified-definition", "name": "Source-qualified definition", "description": "Definitions must retain their scope and attribution. Webster's 1828 entry describes Earth's structure while also recording disagreement over the relationship to geology. [Webster's 1828 entry](https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/geognosy).", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the selected source explicitly include under geognosy?", "kind": "definition", "id": "source-qualified-definition-q01" }, { "text": "Which author, date, language and edition establish this meaning?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "source-qualified-definition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-disciplines", "name": "Neighbouring disciplines", "description": "Makes historical disciplinary boundaries explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "geology-and-mineralogy-boundaries", "name": "Geology and mineralogy boundaries", "description": "Record whether a source treats geognosy as geology, a component of it, or a differently bounded inquiry, and how it separates rock relationships from mineral identification.", "questions": [ { "text": "How does this source distinguish geognosy from geology and mineralogy?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "geology-and-mineralogy-boundaries-q01" }, { "text": "Does an existing catalogue model cover the same concept under this definition?", "kind": "action", "id": "geology-and-mineralogy-boundaries-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "rock-constitution-and-arrangement", "name": "Rock constitution and arrangement", "description": "Captures the relationships among materials, rock bodies and their geographical occurrence.", "rationale": "Geognosy requires contextual relationships that a list of mineral or rock names cannot express.", "layers": [ { "id": "materials-in-context", "name": "Materials in context", "description": "Connects descriptions of minerals and rocks to their occurrence.", "findings": [ { "id": "mineral-rock-associations", "name": "Mineral-rock associations", "description": "Lyell's historical account characterises Werner's geognosy through mineral positions within rocks, rock grouping, distribution and relationships. Preserve these relations when identifying its subject matter. [Lyell's account](https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/mod/lyel-geology3-4.asp).", "questions": [ { "text": "Which relationships between minerals and enclosing rocks does the account investigate?", "kind": "definition", "id": "mineral-rock-associations-q01" }, { "text": "Which observations support the stated association at a particular locality?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "mineral-rock-associations-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "spatial-and-successive-relations", "name": "Spatial and successive relations", "description": "Distinguishes observed arrangement from inferred continuity or age.", "findings": [ { "id": "rock-body-order", "name": "Rock-body order", "description": "Record reported adjacency, superposition and distribution separately from claims that bodies are continuous, equivalent or chronologically ordered.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which contacts or positions were observed, and which were inferred?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "rock-body-order-q01" }, { "text": "Does the stated order describe physical position, relative age or a theoretical sequence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "rock-body-order-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "geognostic-observation-and-evidence", "name": "Geognostic observation and evidence", "description": "Defines how descriptions of Earth's rocky structure can be supported and assessed.", "rationale": "An agent must judge whether the available observations support the geographical and structural reach of an account.", "layers": [ { "id": "field-observation-context", "name": "Field observation context", "description": "Retains the circumstances and limitations of observations.", "findings": [ { "id": "exposure-and-section-support", "name": "Exposure and section support", "description": "For evidence used by an account, preserve locality, observation setting, recorded dimensions and gaps in visibility; do not assume every historical study used the same methods.", "questions": [ { "text": "Was the description based on an outcrop, mine working, collected specimen or another observer's report?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "exposure-and-section-support-q01" }, { "text": "What thicknesses, orientations or distances were recorded, with which original units?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "exposure-and-section-support-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "regional-comparison", "name": "Regional comparison", "description": "Assesses the move from local observations to wider patterns.", "findings": [ { "id": "correlation-warrant", "name": "Correlation warrant", "description": "A proposed correspondence between separated rock occurrences needs its stated comparison criteria and acknowledged observational gaps.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observed similarities or positional relationships justify correlating the occurrences?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "correlation-warrant-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence would be needed before extending the correlation beyond the surveyed area?", "kind": "action", "id": "correlation-warrant-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "historical-classification-and-explanation", "name": "Historical classification and explanation", "description": "Preserves historical rock categories while exposing their descriptive and theoretical commitments.", "rationale": "A historical classification can combine observations with assumptions that require separate assessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "rock-classification-conventions", "name": "Rock classification conventions", "description": "Identifies the meaning and membership rules of historical categories.", "findings": [ { "id": "formation-term-semantics", "name": "Formation-term semantics", "description": "Treat formation names and rock classes as terms within a specified author's system until their relationship to modern terminology is demonstrated.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes a rock body belong to this class in the cited system?", "kind": "definition", "id": "formation-term-semantics-q01" }, { "text": "Does the historical term formation identify the same kind of unit as a proposed modern equivalent?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "formation-term-semantics-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "observation-and-origin-theories", "name": "Observation and origin theories", "description": "Separates descriptions from explanations and school affiliations.", "findings": [ { "id": "theoretical-dependence", "name": "Theoretical dependence", "description": "Assess each claim's dependence on an origin theory rather than equating geognosy with a single doctrine or rejecting an observation because its explanation is outdated.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which conclusions depend on a theory of rock formation rather than recorded arrangement?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "theoretical-dependence-q01" }, { "text": "What explicit passage supports attribution to a named theoretical school?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "theoretical-dependence-q02" }, { "text": "Which observations remain usable if that explanation is set aside?", "kind": "action", "id": "theoretical-dependence-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "disciplinary-attestation-and-modern-mapping", "name": "Disciplinary attestation and modern mapping", "description": "Locates geognosy in teaching and knowledge organisation and controls its translation into contemporary catalogues.", "rationale": "Historical field identity needs documentary support, and catalogue integration must avoid false institutional claims or duplicate concepts.", "layers": [ { "id": "teaching-and-publication-attestation", "name": "Teaching and publication attestation", "description": "Uses institutional and textual records to establish disciplinary recognition.", "findings": [ { "id": "documented-field-status", "name": "Documented field status", "description": "Record dated uses in course titles, manuals, institutional records or learned publications without presuming an independent degree, journal or society existed.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which dated teaching or publication records explicitly name geognosy as a field?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "documented-field-status-q01" }, { "text": "Does the record establish a disciplinary unit, a course topic or only a word in a title?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "documented-field-status-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "catalogue-crosswalks", "name": "Catalogue crosswalks", "description": "Qualifies modern classification and conceptual equivalence.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-modern-placement", "name": "Supported modern placement", "description": "Any DDC, UDC or other classification mapping must identify the scheme, edition and supporting entry; related modern subjects are candidate mappings until equivalence is checked.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which classification edition explicitly indexes geognosy, and under what heading or code?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-modern-placement-q01" }, { "text": "Is the relationship to the proposed modern field equivalence, narrower scope or partial overlap?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "supported-modern-placement-q02" }, { "text": "Should the registry link to an existing model or retain a distinct historical concept based on this evidence?", "kind": "action", "id": "supported-modern-placement-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "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 recalled historical usage, not source-verified research.", "Check the period and author before assigning a precise boundary: geognosy sometimes overlaps substantially with geology.", "No distinct modern classification code, regulatory standard or accepted subdivision is confidently identified here." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of geognosy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Historical description and classification of rocks and rock formations.", "Recording the order, distribution and relationships of strata.", "Geological investigation supporting mining and mineral exploration.", "Interpreting historical geological maps, reports and teaching texts." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of geognosy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Treating the historical term as a precisely bounded modern discipline.", "Assuming that every author's use excludes theories of Earth's origin and development.", "Accepting obsolete interpretations in historical geognostic accounts as established modern geology." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of geognosy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "The term was especially prominent in German-speaking Earth science as Geognosie; its scope and relationship to geology varied across authors, languages and periods." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of geognosy 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": "geology", "difference": "Geology encompasses Earth's materials, structures, processes and history; geognosy historically emphasized descriptive knowledge of its constitution and arrangement." }, { "name": "mineralogy", "difference": "Mineralogy focuses on minerals and their properties; geognosy also addresses rock masses, formations and their relationships." }, { "name": "petrography", "difference": "Petrography describes and classifies rocks; geognosy historically extended to the arrangement of formations and strata." }, { "name": "stratigraphy", "difference": "Stratigraphy studies strata and their succession and correlation; geognosy also included the broader constitution and distribution of rocks." }, { "name": "geogeny", "difference": "In historical distinctions, geogeny concerned Earth's origin and formation, while geognosy concerned its observed constitution and structure." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of geognosy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which historical sense should anchor the currently undefined registry entry, and which senses should remain explicitly qualified alternatives?", "How did the boundary between geognosy, geology, mineralogy and Earth-origin inquiry vary across languages, authors and periods?", "Which primary manuals and teaching records best establish its methods and institutional standing without treating one school as representative of the whole field?", "Which DDC or UDC editions explicitly recognise geognosy, and do their placements indicate synonymy or only a shelving convention?", "Does the existing Vercy world-model catalogue already cover the same concept, and which historical distinctions would a shared publication need to preserve?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 27 } }