{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T13:58:39Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00734604, "turns": 1, "seconds": 49.4, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 66.0, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\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: 01a07c28-f428-79c1-bcc2-ddd604d12090\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: genius\nRegistry id: vr.tr.genius\nPlane / domain: SOC / SOC.PER\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA Vercy mod" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:02:45+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:18:09+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "definition", "owners", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "c88ce718b97490b24031d6ded7af716632929cbb0c8a511f5918bac406b266f6" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:30+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "4 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q185030", "registryId": "vr.tr.genius", "name": "genius", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "SOC.PER" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q185030/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.genius", "name": "genius", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to assess a context-specific attribution of genius, record its evidence and uncertainty, and decide how that attribution may responsibly inform action.", "definition": "A genius is a person with exceptional intellectual ability, creativity or originality, whose identification as such depends on evidence and context rather than a universally agreed measure.", "scope_statement": "This model covers a person as a genius on the basis of exceptional intellectual ability, creativity or originality in a specified domain and context, while keeping demonstrated achievement, inferred potential and social reputation distinct.", "in_scope": [ "The person, domain, period and intended meaning of a genius attribution", "Evidence of exceptional originality, insight or problem-solving capacity", "Relationships between attributed capacity and identifiable contributions", "Standards, comparison groups and evaluators underlying the attribution", "Uncertainty, competing explanations and permissible uses of the attribution" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The person's complete biography, identity and general personality", "Psychometric instruments and their administration", "The full content and lifecycle of artworks, inventions or scientific theories", "General expertise, educational attainment and professional qualifications", "Clinical diagnoses, mental health and disability", "Genius as a spirit, supernatural being or place-associated presence" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Distinguish genius from expertise by checking whether the attribution requires exceptional originality or insight beyond highly proficient execution.", "Distinguish genius from a high test score by checking whether the claim concerns measured performance, demonstrated contributions or a broader inference about capacity.", "Distinguish genius from fame by checking whether support identifies exceptional work or ability independently of publicity and repeated praise.", "Distinguish genius from prodigy by checking whether unusual performance for age is the basis of the claim rather than exceptional achievement against the relevant domain standard.", "Distinguish individual genius from collective achievement by checking which decisions, insights and outputs are attributable to the person and which depend on collaborators." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Attribution meaning", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Exceptional demonstrated capacity | exceptional inferred potential | honorific reputation | other explicitly defined meaning", "why_it_matters": "Different meanings require different evidence and cannot be treated as interchangeable." }, { "name": "Domain of attribution", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to specific disciplines, practices or problem classes", "why_it_matters": "Support in one domain does not establish exceptional capacity elsewhere." }, { "name": "Supporting contributions", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to identifiable works, discoveries, solutions or documented performances", "why_it_matters": "Makes the attribution examinable through concrete evidence." }, { "name": "Originality assessment", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed | disputed | supported relative to a stated body of prior work", "why_it_matters": "Separates demonstrated novelty from unfamiliarity, publicity or missing historical context." }, { "name": "Comparison basis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named comparison population, historical period and evaluation criteria", "why_it_matters": "Exceptional standing is uninterpretable without specifying what it is exceptional relative to." }, { "name": "Evidence breadth", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Number of independently supported contributions, grouped by domain and dated interval", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes a narrow evidential basis from repeated demonstrations without imposing a universal minimum." }, { "name": "Attribution review state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unreviewed | provisionally supported | contested | insufficiently supported | withdrawn", "why_it_matters": "Allows an agent to represent the status of a claim without assigning a permanent rank to a person." }, { "name": "Conditions of demonstrated performance", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to collaborators, tools, training, resources and circumstances", "why_it_matters": "Constrains inferences about individual capacity and future performance." }, { "name": "Authorized decision use", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Descriptive use | evidence-linked development support | task-specific consideration | no consequential use", "why_it_matters": "Makes explicit whether and how the attribution may influence a decision." } ], "affordances": [ "Formulate a bounded genius attribution tied to a person, domain, period and explicit meaning.", "Assemble and challenge evidence of originality, exceptional insight and attributable contribution.", "Compare rival interpretations such as expertise, prodigy, reputation or collective achievement.", "Revise or withdraw an attribution when its evidential basis changes.", "Identify opportunities to support demonstrated strengths using task-specific evidence and the person's preferences.", "Prevent an attribution from being extended into unsupported judgments about unrelated competence, authority or human worth." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain how the idea of genius has been used and debated, citing sources.", "Describe exceptional achievements with evidence and attribution." ], "must_not": [ "Label a living person a genius or not a genius in ways that rank their worth.", "Use the idea of innate genius to support claims that groups differ in worth.", "Excuse harmful behaviour because a person is called a genius." ], "requires_human": [ "Using judgements of exceptional ability to decide a person's education or funding." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "The label has been reserved for some groups and denied to others, especially women and colonized peoples.", "Pressure to be a genius harms children labelled gifted." ], "affected_parties": [ "Children labelled gifted", "Groups excluded from the label" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "No institution owns this category of person; those making or maintaining an attribution are responsible for its evidence and use.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "The term genius is encountered in biographies, cultural commentary and discussions of exceptional intellectual or creative achievement.", "It is used to attribute unusual originality or influence to a person within a particular field and historical setting.", "Responsible assessment considers documented contributions, collaborative work and the social context of recognition." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Treating genius as an objective personal rank can reinforce exclusion and obscure unequal access to opportunity.", "Attributing achievement to one exceptional person can erase collaborators and earlier contributions.", "The label can create unrealistic expectations or encourage acceptance of claims beyond the person's demonstrated expertise." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No formal standard or official classification defines genius as the culturally attributed status described here.", "recognition": "An attribution of genius cannot be established from a person's visible appearance or other perceptual cues." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "apa-genius", "title": "APA Dictionary of Psychology: genius", "url": "https://dictionary.apa.org/genius", "what_it_supports": "Specialist definition: exceptional intellectual or creative power, or a person possessing it; distinguished from giftedness.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "wikidata-q170277", "title": "Wikidata: genius (Q170277)", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q170277", "what_it_supports": "", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "britannica-genius", "title": "Encyclopaedia Britannica: Genius", "url": "https://www.britannica.com/topic/genius-psychology", "what_it_supports": "Historical shift from Roman tutelary spirit to modern exceptional-ability sense; kinds and neighbours.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "simonton-creativity", "title": "Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity (Dean Keith Simonton)", "url": "https://academic.oup.com/book/36350", "what_it_supports": "Research distinction of genius from IQ, prodigy, and eminence; measurement via historiometric criteria.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q185030: genius", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185030", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Genius", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-domain", "name": "Meaning and domain", "description": "Specifies what a genius attribution asserts and where that assertion applies.", "rationale": "An agent cannot evaluate an undefined label or assume that every use of genius makes the same claim.", "layers": [ { "id": "sense-of-genius", "name": "Sense of genius", "description": "Separates claims about demonstrated capacity, potential and honorific standing.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-attribution", "name": "Explicit attribution", "description": "Record the precise claim intended by calling this person a genius, without treating the label as an established fact.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does genius here mean demonstrated exceptional capacity, inferred potential, an honorific or something else?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-attribution-q01" }, { "text": "Who made this attribution, in what words and for what purpose?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "explicit-attribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "domain-and-period", "name": "Domain and period", "description": "Bounds the practices and time interval to which the attribution refers.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-exceptionality", "name": "Bounded exceptionality", "description": "Record the specific problem classes or creative practices in which exceptionality is asserted and the period supported by evidence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which domain, subdomain or class of problems is the person claimed to approach exceptionally?", "kind": "definition", "id": "bounded-exceptionality-q01" }, { "text": "Which periods and adjacent domains fall outside the available support?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-exceptionality-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "exceptional-capacity", "name": "Exceptional capacity", "description": "Examines what distinguishes the claimed ability from proficient or unusually advanced performance.", "rationale": "A genius attribution needs an explicit account of exceptionality instead of relying on credentials or admiration.", "layers": [ { "id": "originality-and-insight", "name": "Originality and insight", "description": "Examines evidence of new approaches, conceptual advances or unusually effective solutions.", "findings": [ { "id": "specific-intellectual-departure", "name": "Specific intellectual departure", "description": "Record the identifiable departure from established work that supports the claim, including unresolved priority disputes.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific idea, method, expression or solution is claimed to depart from established practice?", "kind": "definition", "id": "specific-intellectual-departure-q01" }, { "text": "What prior work has been examined to assess whether that departure was original?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "specific-intellectual-departure-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "comparative-standing", "name": "Comparative standing", "description": "Makes the standard of exceptional performance explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "reference-standard", "name": "Reference standard", "description": "Record the comparison group and criteria, distinguishing age-relative precocity from domain-level exceptionality.", "questions": [ { "text": "Against which contemporaries, historical examples or defined performance standards is the person being compared?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reference-standard-q01" }, { "text": "Would the evidence support expertise or prodigy alone under the stated criteria?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reference-standard-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "contributions-and-attribution", "name": "Contributions and attribution", "description": "Connects claims of genius to concrete outputs and establishes the person's contribution to them.", "rationale": "Exceptional output and exceptional individual capacity are related claims that require separate support.", "layers": [ { "id": "achievement-record", "name": "Achievement record", "description": "Records the work or performances that carry the evidential burden.", "findings": [ { "id": "demonstrated-contributions", "name": "Demonstrated contributions", "description": "Identify inspectable contributions and the grounds on which they are considered exceptional, allowing a singular achievement to remain distinct from a repeated pattern.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which identifiable contributions support the attribution, and where can they be examined?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "demonstrated-contributions-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence show one exceptional contribution or a pattern across independently assessed contributions?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "demonstrated-contributions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "individual-and-collective-inputs", "name": "Individual and collective inputs", "description": "Separates the person's demonstrated role from enabling resources and shared work.", "findings": [ { "id": "credit-and-dependence", "name": "Credit and dependence", "description": "Record which insights and decisions are attributable to the person and which depended on collaborators, prior work or tools.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence identifies the person's specific intellectual or creative contribution?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "credit-and-dependence-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts of the achievement belong to collaborators or enabling systems and must not be credited exclusively to this person?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "credit-and-dependence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "recognition-and-contestation", "name": "Recognition and contestation", "description": "Tracks how the attribution is supported, circulated and challenged.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish evidence-based evaluation from reputational repetition and preserve unresolved disagreement.", "layers": [ { "id": "evaluation-provenance", "name": "Evaluation provenance", "description": "Identifies evaluators, their grounds and the independence of their judgments.", "findings": [ { "id": "independent-assessment", "name": "Independent assessment", "description": "Record who assessed the relevant work, what they examined and whether endorsements derive from independent evaluations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which evaluators examined the relevant contributions directly, and what criteria did they use?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "independent-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Which endorsements merely repeat an earlier genius attribution or have a disclosed promotional interest?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "independent-assessment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "rival-explanations-and-revision", "name": "Rival explanations and revision", "description": "Preserves counterevidence and specifies how the attribution can change.", "findings": [ { "id": "contestable-judgment", "name": "Contestable judgment", "description": "Record substantive objections, alternative explanations and evidence that would change the review state.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence challenges the claimed originality, exceptional standing or individual credit?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contestable-judgment-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence would justify narrowing, strengthening or withdrawing the attribution?", "kind": "action", "id": "contestable-judgment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "decision-use-and-support", "name": "Decision use and support", "description": "Constrains practical uses of the attribution and connects support to demonstrated strengths.", "rationale": "An attribution of genius should inform action only through relevant evidence, explicit decision criteria and the person's agency.", "layers": [ { "id": "task-relevant-use", "name": "Task-relevant use", "description": "Tests whether evidence behind the attribution bears on a proposed decision.", "findings": [ { "id": "permitted-inference", "name": "Permitted inference", "description": "Record the proposed use and the evidence connecting the person's demonstrated capacity to that use.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which demonstrated capabilities are relevant to the proposed task, opportunity or advisory role?", "kind": "action", "id": "permitted-inference-q01" }, { "text": "Would this use extend the attribution into unsupported authority, unrelated competence or exemption from ordinary review?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "permitted-inference-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "support-with-agency", "name": "Support with agency", "description": "Identifies conditions and opportunities the person wants for exercising demonstrated strengths.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-linked-support", "name": "Evidence-linked support", "description": "Record support options grounded in observed working conditions and expressed preferences, without inferring needs from the genius label alone.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which resources, collaborations or working conditions have supported the relevant achievements?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-linked-support-q01" }, { "text": "Which support options does the person want, and how will their usefulness be reviewed?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-linked-support-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-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Historical-great-person genius (canonical figures retrospectively named geniuses)", "Creative genius (original work that redefines an artistic or intellectual field)", "Scientific or technical genius (breakthrough discovery or invention)", "Prodigy or child genius (early exceptional performance, often later reclassified)", "IQ or psychometric high-ability (extreme scores used as a proxy, not equivalent to genius)", "Romantic genius (the autonomous, inspired individual of 18th-19th century aesthetics)", "Roman genius (tutelary spirit of a person, gens, or place; a different sense)", "Folk or everyday genius (honorific for anyone unusually skilled at a task)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Wikidata", "value_or_pattern": "Q170277", "note": "genius as exceptional intellectual power or a person possessing it" }, { "scheme": "Wikidata", "value_or_pattern": "Q18619643", "note": "genius as occupation/role (person class); confirm before reuse" }, { "scheme": "Library of Congress Subject Headings", "value_or_pattern": "Genius", "note": "LCSH topical heading; related: Gifted persons, Creative ability" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "No legal or ISO standard defines 'genius' as a status or diagnosis.", "DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 do not list genius as a clinical category; giftedness is not a disorder.", "NAGC (National Association for Gifted Children) and similar bodies issue practice standards for gifted education, which some systems treat as a neighbouring operational category, not as genius." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Retrospective labelling of historical figures in biographies, museums, and curricula (e.g. 'the genius of Newton').", "Marketing and media honorific for performers, founders, or athletes.", "Informal contrast in education and talent programs, where 'gifted' is the operational category and 'genius' is avoided as unmeasurable.", "Psychometric and historiometric research that operationalizes eminence, citation impact, or judged originality rather than the word itself.", "Legal and IP rhetoric (the 'genius of the inventor') without a statutory test." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "general intelligence (IQ) as a weak proxy", "typical_range": "commonly cited folklore thresholds ~140-160+; research treats this as neither necessary nor sufficient", "unit": "IQ points (test-dependent, SD usually 15)" }, { "quantity": "domain-specific achievement or eminence", "typical_range": "field-top percentile of lasting, cited, or canonized work; no universal cutoff", "unit": "historiometric rank, citations, prizes, or expert consensus" }, { "quantity": "age at first major contribution (prodigy vs adult genius)", "typical_range": "child prodigy often before ~10-12; many canonical geniuses peak in 20s-40s depending on field", "unit": "years of age" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "False equivalence of high IQ, giftedness, or prodigy with genius, producing over-identification and later disappointment.", "Posthumous or media inflation that cannot be falsified.", "Stereotype threat, isolation, and mental-health risk when a person is publicly labelled a genius, especially in childhood.", "Gendered, racial, and class bias in who historically receives the label.", "Confusion with the Roman/religious sense (genius loci, personal daemon) in heritage and classics contexts." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "English 'genius' is a modern ability/person label; Latin genius and Italian genio retain the spirit and style senses more strongly.", "German Genie (Kant, Sturm und Drang) is tied to original aesthetic legislation, not IQ.", "East Asian systems more often operationalize gaocai/giftedness in education policy and rarely use a 'genius' legal or school category.", "Islamic and South Asian traditions have overlapping honorifics (e.g. 'allama', 'pratibha') that do not map 1:1 to the Romantic genius." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "name": "giftedness", "difference": "Giftedness is an educational identification (often IQ, achievement, or multiple-criteria); genius is a rare cultural attribution of field-changing work, not a school placement." }, { "name": "prodigy", "difference": "A prodigy shows adult-level performance in childhood; many prodigies do not become adult geniuses, and many geniuses were not prodigies." }, { "name": "savant (including savant syndrome)", "difference": "Savant skill is highly circumscribed, often alongside disability; genius implies broad or domain-redefining creative contribution." }, { "name": "talent / expertise", "difference": "Talent and expertise are high skill from aptitude plus practice; genius is reserved for originality that changes the domain, not mastery of existing technique." }, { "name": "eminence / celebrity", "difference": "Eminence is social recognition; celebrity can be fame without lasting contribution. Genius claims lasting, field-altering work, which fame neither proves nor disproves." }, { "name": "Roman genius / genius loci", "difference": "A tutelary spirit of a person, family, or place, not a psychological trait; same English word, different ontology." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of genius this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend genius to denote a person category, an exceptional capacity or a social attribution, and does an existing world model already own that meaning?", "Which domain-specific standards can justify exceptionality without imposing an unsupported universal threshold for genius?", "How should inferred potential be evaluated when opportunities to produce inspectable contributions have been limited?", "How should assessments handle collective creativity, incomplete credit records and conflicting judgments across cultural or historical contexts?", "Which consequential uses of a genius attribution, if any, are justified beyond the task-specific evidence already recorded?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 28 } }