{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:15:02Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 14.6, "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: 01a09552-e858-7931-b358-327282795900\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Mercedonius\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 044: 1001 reg", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 68.6, "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: 01a09552-e865-7082-8dd0-9713951b2511\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Mercedonius\nRegistry id: vr.tr.mercedonius\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\n" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:39:13+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:26+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1753160", "registryId": "vr.tr.mercedonius", "name": "Mercedonius", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1753160/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.mercedonius", "name": "Mercedonius", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify Mercedonius, assess evidence for its occurrence and duration, and reconstruct Roman calendar dates without treating uncertain intercalations as established.", "definition": "Mercedonius is the conventional name for the intercalary month inserted into the Roman Republican calendar in selected years to bring its ordinarily 355-day year closer to the solar year.", "scope_statement": "This model owns vr.tr.mercedonius as the named intercalary month of the pre-Julian Roman calendar, including its relationship to February, counting conventions, occurrence evidence, and limits on chronological reconstruction.", "in_scope": [ "Identification of Mercedonius and historically attested naming variants", "Insertion within the February-March calendar sequence", "Distinction between added days and the full intercalary interval", "Evidence for intercalation in particular Roman years", "Source-dependent reconstruction of dates involving the month" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The complete Roman calendar and all its ordinary months", "Intercalation systems of other cultures", "Julian and Gregorian leap-day rules", "Roman priesthoods as institutions", "Independent models of festivals adjoining the intercalation", "General Roman political chronology" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Denotes a Roman intercalary month associated with February, rather than an ordinary month occurring every year.", "Requires an explicit distinction between days added to the year and days counted within the intercalary month.", "An occurrence requires year-specific evidence or an explicitly labelled reconstruction; a proposed repeating cycle alone does not establish it.", "Must be distinguished from the Julian intercalary day and from exceptional calendar corrections outside the ordinary February intercalation.", "Uses Mercedonius as the registry label while treating the historical equivalence and attestation of other names as claims requiring evidence." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Calendar affiliation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Pre-Julian Roman civil calendar, qualified by period and source", "why_it_matters": "Prevents applying this month to calendar systems with different intercalation rules." }, { "name": "Attested designation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Exact source wording, language, spelling, and proposed equivalence to Mercedonius", "why_it_matters": "Separates historical terminology from modern normalization." }, { "name": "Occurrence assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Attested present; attested absent; reconstructed present; reconstructed absent; disputed; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Preserves the difference between evidence of absence and missing evidence." }, { "name": "Insertion boundary", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Last preceding February date, first following date, and source-specific treatment of February's remaining days", "why_it_matters": "Determines the sequence of dates across the intercalation." }, { "name": "Net extension of year", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Days; commonly reported as 22 or 23, subject to the selected account", "why_it_matters": "Measures the chronological effect separately from the nominal month length." }, { "name": "Counted intercalary interval", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Days, with explicit inclusion or exclusion of displaced February days", "why_it_matters": "Makes apparently conflicting length statements comparable." }, { "name": "Intercalation authority", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Attributed decision-making body or official, date, and supporting testimony", "why_it_matters": "Connects an occurrence to historically evidenced calendar administration." }, { "name": "Conversion readiness", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Uniquely constrained; multiple candidate mappings; insufficient evidence", "why_it_matters": "Controls whether an agent may return one converted date or must preserve alternatives." } ], "affordances": [ "Recognize a source's intercalary-month reference and propose a qualified link to Mercedonius.", "Compare competing accounts of insertion and duration using explicit counting conventions.", "Assess whether Mercedonius occurred in a specified Roman year.", "Construct alternative February-March sequences when evidence permits several reconstructions.", "Calculate the year extension under a stated reconstruction.", "Return a conditional date conversion or withhold an exact conversion when the chronology is underdetermined." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain the Roman intercalary month and the uncertainty over its name and timing, citing classical sources.", "Convert Roman Republican dates only with stated assumptions about intercalation." ], "must_not": [ "Present a reconstructed Republican date as an exact equivalent in the Julian or Gregorian calendar.", "Invent ancient sources or quotes about the month.", "Treat the conventional name as attested where scholars dispute it.", "Hide the scholarly uncertainty about which years were intercalated." ], "requires_human": [ "Correcting a published chronology based on a new reconstruction." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "False precision about ancient dates misleads readers and later research.", "Scholarly disagreement should be shown, not resolved by fiat." ], "affected_parties": [ "Historians and students", "Readers of reference works" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; historians and classicists study it.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "Mercedonius is encountered in studies of the Roman Republican calendar and the dating of ancient events.", "Its insertion helped reconcile the calendar year with the solar year.", "Historians consider evidence for individual intercalations when comparing Roman dates with reconstructed chronological systems." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Assuming a regular intercalation cycle can assign incorrect dates to historical events.", "Treating disputed month lengths or insertions as certain can propagate false precision through chronological datasets.", "Confusing Republican intercalation with Julian leap years can produce inconsistent calendar conversions." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No current standard, regulation or official classification directly governs this historical intercalary month.", "recognition": "Mercedonius is a calendrical concept with no intrinsic visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1753160: Mercedonius", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1753160", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Mercedonius", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedonius", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "month-identity-and-attestation", "name": "Month identity and attestation", "description": "Establish what a reference to Mercedonius denotes and how its designation is supported.", "rationale": "The registry supplies no definition, so recognition must establish the calendrical referent and qualify naming evidence.", "layers": [ { "id": "roman-intercalary-referent", "name": "Roman intercalary referent", "description": "Locate the named month within its historical calendar.", "findings": [ { "id": "identify-the-calendar-role", "name": "Identify the calendar role", "description": "Mercedonius denotes a Roman intercalary month inserted in the February sequence to help align the calendar with the seasons. Source: [Lex: mercedonius](https://lex.dk/mercedonius).", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this reference denote the Roman intercalary month, or merely mention its name in another context?", "kind": "definition", "id": "identify-the-calendar-role-q01" }, { "text": "Which historical calendar phase does the reference concern?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "identify-the-calendar-role-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "names-and-textual-witnesses", "name": "Names and textual witnesses", "description": "Preserve exact designations alongside proposed equivalences.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualify-name-equivalence", "name": "Qualify name equivalence", "description": "Historical dictionary material associates Mercedonius and Mercedinus with the intercalary month; the model should retain the wording and witness behind each identification. Source: [CLD: mercedonius](https://cld.bbaw.de/lemma/lat/mercedonius).", "questions": [ { "text": "What exact spelling and language occur in the cited witness?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualify-name-equivalence-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports treating this designation as equivalent to the registry's Mercedonius?", "kind": "definition", "id": "qualify-name-equivalence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "february-insertion-and-day-accounting", "name": "February insertion and day accounting", "description": "Represent the interruption of February and the counting of the inserted interval.", "rationale": "A duration without its counting convention can misstate both the month and the year's extension.", "layers": [ { "id": "insertion-boundaries", "name": "Insertion boundaries", "description": "Specify where the month enters the February-March sequence.", "findings": [ { "id": "preserve-boundary-variants", "name": "Preserve boundary variants", "description": "Accounts place intercalation after February 23 or 24 and explain its relationship to February's remaining days differently; retain the chosen account rather than silently standardizing it. Source: [Encyclopaedia Romana: Intercalation](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/intercalation.html).", "questions": [ { "text": "After which February date does this source place the insertion?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "preserve-boundary-variants-q01" }, { "text": "How does this account assign the remaining February days to the intercalary sequence?", "kind": "definition", "id": "preserve-boundary-variants-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "net-and-gross-duration", "name": "Net and gross duration", "description": "Separate additional elapsed days from the interval called the intercalary month.", "findings": [ { "id": "reconcile-duration-statements", "name": "Reconcile duration statements", "description": "A historical reference distinguishes 22 or 23 inserted days from 27 or 28 when five remaining February days are included. These are source-specific counting statements, not interchangeable measurements. Source: [Smith's Dictionary: Calendarium](https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA%2A/Calendarium.html).", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the stated length measure the year's net extension or the full counted intercalary interval?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reconcile-duration-statements-q01" }, { "text": "Does the reconstructed day sequence reproduce the stated year length without counting February days twice?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reconcile-duration-statements-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "intercalation-decisions-and-occurrences", "name": "Intercalation decisions and occurrences", "description": "Assess whether an intercalation was prescribed, announced, or actually observed in a particular year.", "rationale": "A general account of the cycle does not establish the calendar used in an individual historical year.", "layers": [ { "id": "prescription-and-administration", "name": "Prescription and administration", "description": "Distinguish proposed calendar regularity from administrative decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "separate-cycle-from-decision", "name": "Separate cycle from decision", "description": "Record cycle descriptions, attributed authority, and evidence of implementation separately. Historical accounts themselves leave uncertainty about whether some proposed cycles were strictly followed. Source: [The Galileo Project: Gregorian Calendar](https://galileo.library.rice.edu/chron/gregorian.html).", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the source describe an ideal cycle, a customary practice, or a decision for a named year?", "kind": "definition", "id": "separate-cycle-from-decision-q01" }, { "text": "Which testimony identifies who could authorize or announce this intercalation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "separate-cycle-from-decision-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "year-specific-evidence", "name": "Year-specific evidence", "description": "Judge individual occurrences without filling gaps mechanically.", "findings": [ { "id": "assess-an-occurrence", "name": "Assess an occurrence", "description": "Each proposed occurrence should retain its Roman year identification, supporting evidence, reconstruction assumptions, and unresolved alternatives.", "questions": [ { "text": "What dated document, calendar witness, or historical testimony supports presence or absence in this year?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "assess-an-occurrence-q01" }, { "text": "Should the agent classify this occurrence as attested, reconstructed, disputed, or unknown?", "kind": "action", "id": "assess-an-occurrence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "chronological-use-and-reform-boundaries", "name": "Chronological use and reform boundaries", "description": "Control date reconstruction and distinguish Mercedonius from later or exceptional calendar corrections.", "rationale": "The useful output is a defensible chronological operation whose assumptions and historical applicability remain visible.", "layers": [ { "id": "conditional-date-reconstruction", "name": "Conditional date reconstruction", "description": "Translate dates only as far as the occurrence evidence and chronological anchors allow.", "findings": [ { "id": "gate-exact-conversion", "name": "Gate exact conversion", "description": "An exact conversion requires a specified year, intercalation reconstruction, date-counting convention, target calendar, and sufficient chronological anchors.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which independent anchor constrains the correspondence between this Roman date and the target calendar?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "gate-exact-conversion-q01" }, { "text": "Do the surviving alternatives permit one date, several candidate dates, or no defensible conversion?", "kind": "action", "id": "gate-exact-conversion-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "julian-transition-and-exceptions", "name": "Julian transition and exceptions", "description": "Determine when this intercalary-month model applies.", "findings": [ { "id": "distinguish-replacement-mechanisms", "name": "Distinguish replacement mechanisms", "description": "The Julian reform replaced the earlier calendar arrangement with a solar-year system using an intercalary day. A calendar correction must therefore be identified by mechanism and period before it is assigned to Mercedonius. Source: [The Galileo Project: Gregorian Calendar](https://galileo.library.rice.edu/chron/gregorian.html).", "questions": [ { "text": "Is this reference to the February intercalary month, an exceptional reform interval, or a Julian intercalary day?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "distinguish-replacement-mechanisms-q01" }, { "text": "Should the agent apply this model, preserve an uncertain identification, or refer the operation to the relevant calendar model?", "kind": "action", "id": "distinguish-replacement-mechanisms-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 is a historical calendar component, not a discipline or field of knowledge.", "Check the ancient attestation and usage of the name Mercedonius against the designation mensis intercalaris.", "The insertion point, treatment of February's remaining days, and actual intercalation sequence require specialist verification; the 22-23 days describe the net extension of the year, not necessarily the named month's length." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Mercedonius 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": [ "Adjusted the Roman Republican civil calendar relative to the seasons.", "Its insertion was administered by Roman pontiffs." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Mercedonius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Net extension of an intercalated Republican calendar year", "typical_range": "22-23", "unit": "days" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of Mercedonius 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": [ "Irregular intercalation allowed civil calendar dates to drift relative to the seasons.", "Uncertain intercalation histories complicate conversion of Republican Roman dates into modern calendar dates." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Mercedonius 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": "Intercalary month", "difference": "The general category of an extra month used to adjust a calendar; Mercedonius is a specific Roman example." }, { "name": "February", "difference": "February was an ordinary annual month; Mercedonius was an occasional insertion associated with its latter part." }, { "name": "Julian leap day", "difference": "The Julian system adjusted the year by adding one day rather than an intercalary month." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Mercedonius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which surviving ancient witnesses attest each designation, and what supports the proposed derivation of Mercedonius from terminology for wages?", "Which insertion and duration differences reflect counting conventions, historical changes, or incompatible reconstructions?", "For which individual Roman years can the presence, absence, and duration of Mercedonius be established independently?", "What evidence supports proposed intercalation cycles and their actual implementation rather than retrospective explanations?", "How should the final pre-Julian intercalations be distinguished from exceptional corrections during the reform transition?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 13, "questions": 21 } }