{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:14:42Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.1, "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: 01a0951b-c572-7f81-8235-46f07e834ae9\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: heterarchy\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: SOC.ORG\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": 63.0, "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: 01a0951b-c57a-7cc1-953f-e61687324411\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: heterarchy\nRegistry id: vr.tr.heterarchy\nPlane / domain: SOC / SOC.ORG\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": "2026-10-06T08:43:17+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:12:55+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "definition", "distinguishing_features", "in_scope", "out_of_scope", "purpose", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "bc01cba25df5ce0c95bf21568b291ca6880883d11aa3ea19b8d2a952c6aef77e" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:29+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1616178", "registryId": "vr.tr.heterarchy", "name": "heterarchy", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "SOC.ORG" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1616178/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.heterarchy", "name": "heterarchy", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess heterarchical relationships by recording the elements, whether they are ranked, and how any rankings vary across criteria and contexts.", "definition": "Heterarchy is a relationship among elements in which they are unranked relative to one another or can be ranked in different ways, without requiring a single fixed ordering or a social or organizational setting.", "scope_statement": "This model owns heterarchy as a relationship among elements that are unranked or can be ranked in various ways, including social, organizational, neural and computational settings and coexistence with local hierarchies; it does not own the participating elements themselves.", "in_scope": [ "The elements and the scope within which their relationships are assessed are included.", "Unranked relationships and context-dependent, overlapping or incomparable rankings are included.", "The criteria and contexts supporting different rankings are included.", "Interactions between heterarchical relationships and local hierarchies are included.", "Authority, coordination, disagreement resolution, accountability and changes in effective control are included where applicable to social or organizational instances.", "Neural and computational relationships are included when their elements are unranked or can be ranked in various ways." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Participating organizations' legal identities and registration are outside this relationship model.", "Individual participants' biographies and employment records are outside this relationship model.", "Network connectivity alone does not establish whether elements are unranked or can be ranked in various ways.", "Market exchange mechanisms considered independently of the elements' ranking relationships are outside this model.", "Domain-specific properties of participating elements are outside this model except where needed to characterize their relationships." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Elements may qualify through being unranked, without requiring plural authority or multiple evaluative orders.", "Elements may also qualify when their ranking differs across criteria or contexts.", "One fixed ordering that exhausts the relevant relationships supports classification as a hierarchy at that scope.", "A flat arrangement can qualify when its elements are unranked relative to one another, although equal formal titles alone do not establish their actual relationships.", "Multiple centres of authority can indicate organizational heterarchy but are not required in every instance.", "Decentralised delegation alone does not establish heterarchy when the relevant relationships remain governed by a single fixed ordering.", "Local hierarchies can coexist with heterarchical relationships at another scope." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Decision-domain coverage", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named domains and tasks for which heterarchical organisation is claimed", "why_it_matters": "An arrangement may be heterarchical for some decisions and hierarchical for others." }, { "name": "Authority dependencies", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Context-qualified relations of authorisation, delegation, veto, override and mutual dependence", "why_it_matters": "These relations reveal whether apparent autonomy is subordinate to a common controlling authority." }, { "name": "Ranking relationship", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Stable precedence, context-dependent precedence, equal standing, incomparable standing, contested standing or unknown", "why_it_matters": "Different ranking relationships should not be collapsed into a generic claim that hierarchy is absent." }, { "name": "Evaluative orders", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named criteria for judging proposals, with their supporting participants and applicable contexts", "why_it_matters": "Authority may depend on competing definitions of what counts as a good decision." }, { "name": "Observed override concentration", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Percentage of recorded overrides exercised by each centre within a specified domain and observation period", "why_it_matters": "Repeated overrides can reveal concentrated effective control despite distributed formal roles." }, { "name": "Coordination condition", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Functioning, negotiating, deadlocked, under temporary central control, fragmenting or unknown", "why_it_matters": "The current condition affects which coordination actions are feasible." }, { "name": "Local hierarchy embedding", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links from the arrangement to internally hierarchical units and their interface rules", "why_it_matters": "Internal hierarchies can coexist with heterarchical relations between units." } ], "affordances": [ "Map who may initiate, approve, veto or revise a decision in a specified context.", "Compare formal authority with observed decisions and overrides.", "Identify competing rankings or evaluative criteria behind a disagreement.", "Route a proposal through the applicable negotiation or joint decision process.", "Detect deadlock, unassigned accountability or emerging concentration of control.", "Assess how a proposed governance change would alter autonomy and interdependence." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain heterarchy and how it differs from hierarchy, with sourced examples.", "Help a group describe its own decision structure when asked." ], "must_not": [ "Present an organization as heterarchical when power is in fact concentrated.", "Use the term to hide who is accountable for decisions.", "Attribute a governance model to an organization without evidence.", "Present heterarchy as always better than hierarchy." ], "requires_human": [ "Changing the decision structure of a real organization." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Flat or plural structures can empower people, or can hide informal power and evade accountability.", "Misdescribing a structure can mislead members about their rights." ], "affected_parties": [ "Members of organizations", "Workers", "People affected by decisions" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; each organization answers for its own structure.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Unclear accountability when several centres of authority overlap.", "Slow or conflicting decisions in a crisis." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Heterarchy is used in organizational and social analysis to describe arrangements with multiple rankings or distributed authority.", "It helps explain coordination in collaborative networks and teams where leadership changes with expertise, task or situation.", "It is also used to examine how participants resolve decisions when no single ordering governs every relationship." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No standard or regulation applies intrinsically to heterarchy as an abstract organizational arrangement.", "recognition": "Heterarchy is a pattern of relationships inferred from authority and coordination practices rather than a visually identifiable object." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1616178: heterarchy", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1616178", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Heterarchy", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "authority-across-domains", "name": "Authority across domains", "description": "Locate the centres of authority and establish the scope within which their relations are heterarchical.", "rationale": "Distributed participation alone does not establish heterarchy; the model must expose actual decision rights and their limits.", "layers": [ { "id": "centres-and-remits", "name": "Centres and remits", "description": "Identify the units that exercise authority and the matters over which they do so.", "findings": [ { "id": "effective-authority-centres", "name": "Effective authority centres", "description": "Record candidate centres, their decision domains and evidence of their ability to act.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which participants can make consequential decisions, and within which domains?", "kind": "definition", "id": "effective-authority-centres-q01" }, { "text": "Which mandates and observed decisions support each claimed authority?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "effective-authority-centres-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "subordination-and-autonomy", "name": "Subordination and autonomy", "description": "Examine whether independent authority persists when centres disagree.", "findings": [ { "id": "limits-of-central-override", "name": "Limits of central override", "description": "Distinguish domain-specific autonomy from authority that a common superior routinely directs or revokes.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can any actor routinely override every centre, or are its powers restricted to particular matters or exceptional conditions?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "limits-of-central-override-q01" }, { "text": "When centres last disagreed, who determined the outcome and on what authority?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "limits-of-central-override-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "plural-rankings-and-values", "name": "Plural rankings and values", "description": "Represent how precedence and standards of worth differ across situations.", "rationale": "A single organisational chart cannot express context-dependent precedence or competing evaluative orders.", "layers": [ { "id": "situated-precedence", "name": "Situated precedence", "description": "Record ranking relations together with their task, criterion and time boundaries.", "findings": [ { "id": "context-qualified-rankings", "name": "Context-qualified rankings", "description": "Capture where precedence reverses, remains unsettled or cannot be expressed as one shared ordering.", "questions": [ { "text": "For which tasks or criteria does one centre take precedence over another, and where does that relationship change?", "kind": "definition", "id": "context-qualified-rankings-q01" }, { "text": "Are apparently unranked centres recognised as equals, regarded as incomparable, or simply insufficiently documented?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "context-qualified-rankings-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "competing-evaluative-orders", "name": "Competing evaluative orders", "description": "Identify the standards through which different participants justify decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "criteria-and-their-carriers", "name": "Criteria and their carriers", "description": "Record which centres support each evaluative criterion and how disagreements between criteria are handled.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which criteria confer legitimacy on proposals, and which participants sustain each criterion?", "kind": "definition", "id": "criteria-and-their-carriers-q01" }, { "text": "How may an agent advance a proposal when the applicable criteria favour incompatible outcomes?", "kind": "action", "id": "criteria-and-their-carriers-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "coordination-without-universal-command", "name": "Coordination without universal command", "description": "Describe how partially autonomous centres commit to joint action and address disagreement.", "rationale": "Recognising heterarchy is useful only if an agent can determine how action becomes authorised across its centres.", "layers": [ { "id": "joint-commitment", "name": "Joint commitment", "description": "Identify the mechanisms that turn separate decisions into coordinated activity.", "findings": [ { "id": "cross-centre-decision-process", "name": "Cross-centre decision process", "description": "Record negotiation, mutual adjustment, shared forums or other evidenced means of securing commitments.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which decisions require agreement across centres, and what constitutes sufficient agreement?", "kind": "definition", "id": "cross-centre-decision-process-q01" }, { "text": "Through which process can an agent request commitments without presuming authority over the participating centres?", "kind": "action", "id": "cross-centre-decision-process-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "disagreement-and-answerability", "name": "Disagreement and answerability", "description": "Establish how disputes proceed and how responsibility remains attributable across shared decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "deadlock-and-responsibility", "name": "Deadlock and responsibility", "description": "Record available dispute paths, their jurisdiction and responsibility for decisions or failures to decide.", "questions": [ { "text": "What can participants do when negotiation fails, and does that process introduce a temporary or permanent superior?", "kind": "action", "id": "deadlock-and-responsibility-q01" }, { "text": "Who must explain, remedy or accept consequences for a joint decision or unresolved deadlock?", "kind": "definition", "id": "deadlock-and-responsibility-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "mixed-structures-and-change", "name": "Mixed structures and change", "description": "Track heterarchy at the appropriate organisational scale and assess changes in effective control.", "rationale": "A heterarchical arrangement can contain hierarchies and can change character without changing its formal description.", "layers": [ { "id": "nested-governance", "name": "Nested governance", "description": "Separate relations within participating units from relations between them.", "findings": [ { "id": "hierarchy-heterarchy-interfaces", "name": "Hierarchy-heterarchy interfaces", "description": "Identify local chains of command and the rules governing their participation in the wider arrangement.", "questions": [ { "text": "At which scale and for which activities does the heterarchy claim apply?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "hierarchy-heterarchy-interfaces-q01" }, { "text": "How do internally hierarchical units authorise representatives and honour commitments negotiated with other centres?", "kind": "action", "id": "hierarchy-heterarchy-interfaces-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "effective-control-over-time", "name": "Effective control over time", "description": "Observe whether distributed authority persists through routine work, crises and membership changes.", "findings": [ { "id": "concentration-and-reconfiguration", "name": "Concentration and reconfiguration", "description": "Track overrides, dependencies and exceptional powers that may alter the arrangement's character.", "questions": [ { "text": "Over the observation period, how are consequential decisions and overrides distributed across centres and domains?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "concentration-and-reconfiguration-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows whether emergency authority expired, became routine or shifted control to a different centre?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "concentration-and-reconfiguration-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": [ "Heterarchy is an analytical concept, not an organization, legal form, or registration category.", "Usage differs across organizational sociology, archaeology, and cybernetics; a researcher should establish which disciplinary sense the registry intends.", "The uses and potential failure modes are recalled conceptual applications, not findings from sources consulted for this response; no universal quantitative thresholds are asserted." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of heterarchy 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": [ "Analyzing organizations in which multiple sources of authority or criteria of value coexist.", "Describing coordination across teams or organizations without a single overarching chain of command.", "Interpreting archaeological societies whose political, economic, and ritual rankings do not coincide.", "Studying governance arrangements with overlapping and context-dependent decision rights." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of heterarchy 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": [ "Overlapping authority can leave accountability and decision ownership unclear.", "Competing rankings or evaluation criteria can produce unresolved disputes.", "Coordination can become costly when decisions require negotiation across autonomous participants.", "Informal dominance can persist despite an apparent absence of fixed ranks." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of heterarchy 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": "hierarchy", "difference": "Hierarchy orders elements by superordination and subordination; heterarchy permits unranked relations or multiple rankings, and can coexist with particular hierarchies." }, { "name": "decentralization", "difference": "Decentralization distributes decision authority away from a center but can retain a fixed hierarchy; heterarchy concerns the absence or plurality of ordering relations." }, { "name": "polycentric governance", "difference": "Polycentric governance has multiple decision-making centers; calling it heterarchical additionally concerns how those centers are ranked or related." }, { "name": "network organization", "difference": "Network organization emphasizes coordination through relationships among participants; those relationships can still contain a stable dominant actor or hierarchy." }, { "name": "egalitarianism", "difference": "Egalitarianism concerns equality as a principle or condition; heterarchy does not require equal power, resources, or status." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of heterarchy this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which scholarly interpretation should anchor this registry entry: plural evaluative orders, context-dependent rankings, distributed authority, or an explicitly qualified combination?", "What minimum evidence distinguishes heterarchy from decentralised hierarchy, matrix management and polycentric governance?", "Under what conditions does a legally superior body coexist with heterarchy in practice, and when does its retained authority defeat that classification?", "Which observation period and decision sample are sufficient to distinguish durable heterarchy from temporary negotiation or crisis arrangements?", "Which existing Vercy world models already cover this concept and should serve as its single publication?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 12, "questions": 20 } }