{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T08:18:50Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.2, "error": "WARNING: failed to clean up stale arg0 temp dirs: Access is denied. (os error 5)\nReading 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: 01a094b1-8a01-7b60-8113-75593f4aa76f\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: cabinet crisis\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.STA\n", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 73.9, "error": "WARNING: failed to clean up stale arg0 temp dirs: Access is denied. (os error 5)\nReading 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: 01a094b1-89fb-7da0-a238-f59c4e1bfc99\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: cabinet crisis\nRegistry id: vr.tr.cabinet-crisis\nPlane / domain: XCT" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:47:48+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:22:16+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "definition", "distinguishing_features", "in_scope", "out_of_scope", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "a48bace6a6bdb41f9de16c38995e8050bc5b8947096f40ffd8aa053e1b9bf83b" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:30+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1968864", "registryId": "vr.tr.cabinet-crisis", "name": "cabinet crisis", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.STA" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1968864/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.cabinet-crisis", "name": "cabinet crisis", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a cabinet crisis, assess threats to the government's continuity and capacity, and identify responses available under the relevant political and constitutional arrangements.", "definition": "A cabinet crisis is a political episode involving the mass resignation or threatened mass resignation of top-level government advisers, including cabinet ministers.", "scope_statement": "This model owns an episode of actual or threatened mass resignation by top-level government advisers, including evidence of the collective resignation, its triggers, effects on governing capacity, escalation and resolution within the relevant political system.", "in_scope": [ "Assess evidence and competing interpretations of actual or threatened mass resignation by top-level government advisers.", "Assess threats to cabinet cohesion, leadership and parliamentary support as they relate to the mass resignation episode.", "Describe formal procedures and political negotiations affecting the resignation threat or its consequences.", "Assess changes in governing capacity and authority during the episode.", "Identify episode boundaries, resolution conditions and unresolved consequences." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Routine ministerial turnover and cabinet reshuffles without actual or threatened mass resignation are outside this sense.", "The complete institutional design of cabinets and legislatures is a separate subject.", "Election campaigns and electoral administration are separate subjects.", "Policy disputes, coalition breakdown and loss of parliamentary support without actual or threatened mass resignation are outside this sense.", "Constitutional or regime crises are outside scope beyond their direct relationship to the mass resignation episode." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Evidence must establish actual or threatened mass resignation among top-level government advisers rather than general dissatisfaction or instability.", "An individual ministerial resignation alone does not qualify without evidence of a wider actual or threatened mass resignation.", "A coalition disagreement or loss of governing support qualifies only when it involves actual or threatened mass resignation.", "Resolution depends on the relevant political and constitutional arrangements, while classification as a constitutional crisis requires separate evidence about contested rules or authority.", "Routine government formation, failed formation or disputed continuity does not qualify by itself without actual or threatened mass resignation." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Cabinet and jurisdiction", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified cabinet, government leader, jurisdiction and tenure interval", "why_it_matters": "Identifies whose continuity is threatened and which institutional arrangements apply." }, { "name": "Crisis classification", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Cohesion crisis; leadership crisis; support crisis; formation or succession crisis; mixed; disputed", "why_it_matters": "Separates mechanisms that require different evidence and responses without treating one interpretation as settled." }, { "name": "Episode stage", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Reported threat; active contestation; attempted settlement; transition; resolved; disputed", "why_it_matters": "Supports assessment of whether action is impending, underway or complete." }, { "name": "Legislative support position", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Committed supporting votes and required threshold for a specified procedure and date; unknown or not applicable", "why_it_matters": "Measures support against an actual survival procedure rather than assuming that minority status means collapse." }, { "name": "Cabinet cohesion", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Collective agreement maintained; public dissent; threatened withdrawal; actual withdrawal; disputed", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes rhetorical conflict from changes in participation or collective commitment." }, { "name": "Authority during crisis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Ordinary mandate; resignation pending; caretaker or interim mandate; disputed mandate; jurisdiction-specific status", "why_it_matters": "Connects proposed actions to the cabinet's current legal and conventional authority." }, { "name": "Governing disruption", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "No demonstrated disruption; specified decisions delayed; essential votes blocked; collective decisions suspended; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Separates survival speculation from observable effects on governing." }, { "name": "Episode duration", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Days between explicitly justified onset and end dates, with uncertain bounds permitted", "why_it_matters": "Allows comparison while preserving disagreement about when the crisis began or ended." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare rival crisis labels against documented threats to cabinet viability.", "Map the actors whose continued participation or support affects cabinet survival.", "Track confidence procedures, resignation decisions and negotiation deadlines.", "Assess possible responses against the cabinet's current authority and applicable rules.", "Distinguish restoration of the existing cabinet from replacement, election or unresolved transition.", "Flag unsupported interpretations, uncertain vote commitments and disputed episode boundaries." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Report a cabinet crisis from sourced news and official statements.", "Explain constitutional rules on government formation and confidence in general terms.", "Present the positions of each party fairly." ], "must_not": [ "Spread unverified rumours of resignations or collapse.", "Take sides while presenting reporting as neutral.", "Fabricate statements by ministers or leaders.", "Use the crisis to push disinformation campaigns." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing analysis that predicts outcomes for named politicians." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Instability affects public services and markets, and false reports can worsen it.", "Citizens need accurate information in democratic crises." ], "affected_parties": [ "Citizens", "Politicians", "Public servants" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; the head of state and parliament resolve it under the constitution.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Paralysis of government decisions.", "Market and public anxiety from rumours." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "A cabinet crisis occurs in political reporting and constitutional analysis when resignations or threatened resignations undermine collective government leadership.", "It is assessed to understand whether the government can retain support, make decisions and maintain continuity of public administration.", "Possible outcomes depend on the relevant constitutional system and the balance of political support." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "Germany's Basic Law, adopted by the Parliamentary Council, provides mechanisms in Articles 67 and 68 for replacing the Federal Chancellor through a constructive vote of no confidence and addressing a failed confidence motion." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "A cabinet crisis is a political condition established through institutional events and evidence rather than visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1968864: cabinet crisis", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1968864", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Cabinet crisis", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_crisis", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "recognition-and-boundaries", "name": "Recognition and boundaries", "description": "Establishes what makes the episode a cabinet crisis and how its boundaries are justified.", "rationale": "Political actors, journalists and researchers may apply the label to different levels of conflict, so classification needs explicit criteria.", "layers": [ { "id": "classification-threshold", "name": "Classification threshold", "description": "Tests the crisis label against the cabinet's collective viability.", "findings": [ { "id": "viability-challenge", "name": "Viability challenge", "description": "Record the alleged threat to cabinet survival or collective functioning, together with who characterises it as a crisis.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observable challenge makes this more than routine dissent, a reshuffle or public unpopularity?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "viability-challenge-q01" }, { "text": "Who calls the episode a cabinet crisis, and what evidence or definition supports that classification?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "viability-challenge-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "episode-delimitation", "name": "Episode delimitation", "description": "Separates this crisis from earlier disputes and later transitions.", "findings": [ { "id": "onset-and-continuity", "name": "Onset and continuity", "description": "Record candidate onset events and reasons for treating successive confrontations as one episode or separate episodes.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which event marks the onset: a withdrawal threat, resignation, failed vote or another documented challenge?", "kind": "definition", "id": "onset-and-continuity-q01" }, { "text": "What would justify treating a renewed confrontation as a new crisis rather than continuation of this one?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "onset-and-continuity-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "breakdown-mechanisms", "name": "Breakdown mechanisms", "description": "Examines how leadership disputes, coalition fractures and external triggers threaten the cabinet.", "rationale": "The visible controversy may differ from the mechanism that makes the cabinet unable to continue.", "layers": [ { "id": "trigger-and-escalation", "name": "Trigger and escalation", "description": "Connects the initiating controversy to concrete threats against cabinet continuity.", "findings": [ { "id": "trigger-to-survival-link", "name": "Trigger to survival link", "description": "Record how a policy dispute, scandal, defeat or other event became a challenge to the cabinet as a collective.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence connects the initiating event to threatened loss of leadership, participation or governing support?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "trigger-to-survival-link-q01" }, { "text": "Which escalation events changed the cabinet's survival prospects, and when did they occur?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "trigger-to-survival-link-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "internal-cohesion", "name": "Internal cohesion", "description": "Examines commitments among the government leader, ministers and participating parties.", "findings": [ { "id": "participation-and-leadership", "name": "Participation and leadership", "description": "Record demands, withdrawal decisions and leadership challenges that affect continued collective government.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which ministers or parties have threatened or ended participation, and which commitments remain in force?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "participation-and-leadership-q01" }, { "text": "Could replacing a minister or government leader settle the dispute, or is the governing agreement itself contested?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "participation-and-leadership-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "support-and-survival-procedures", "name": "Support and survival procedures", "description": "Relates political support to the procedures through which cabinet tenure can be challenged or maintained.", "rationale": "Cabinet survival depends on jurisdiction-specific rules and credible commitments, not simply seat totals or public statements.", "layers": [ { "id": "support-arithmetic", "name": "Support arithmetic", "description": "Assesses support for the particular decisions relevant to cabinet survival.", "findings": [ { "id": "decisive-vote-position", "name": "Decisive vote position", "description": "Record the relevant chamber, voting threshold, commitments and uncertainties for each potentially decisive vote.", "questions": [ { "text": "For the specified vote, how do the applicable threshold, abstentions and attendance affect the support required?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "decisive-vote-position-q01" }, { "text": "Which support commitments are documented, conditional, withdrawn or merely inferred?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "decisive-vote-position-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "constitutional-procedures", "name": "Constitutional procedures", "description": "Identifies applicable routes to resignation, dismissal, replacement or continued tenure.", "findings": [ { "id": "available-survival-and-exit-routes", "name": "Available survival and exit routes", "description": "Record formal rules and conventions governing the available procedures without assuming that they are shared across political systems.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which authoritative texts or documented conventions govern confidence, resignation, dismissal and dissolution in this jurisdiction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "available-survival-and-exit-routes-q01" }, { "text": "Who may initiate each applicable procedure, and what prerequisites or deadlines constrain it?", "kind": "action", "id": "available-survival-and-exit-routes-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "governing-capacity-and-interim-authority", "name": "Governing capacity and interim authority", "description": "Assesses what the cabinet can accomplish and what authority it retains during the crisis.", "rationale": "Political instability, operational disruption and restrictions on authority are distinct conditions that require separate assessment.", "layers": [ { "id": "operational-disruption", "name": "Operational disruption", "description": "Examines effects on collective decisions and essential government business.", "findings": [ { "id": "blocked-government-business", "name": "Blocked government business", "description": "Record specific decisions, legislation or appointments affected by the crisis and the evidence linking those effects to it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which cabinet decisions or essential legislative measures have been delayed, defeated or abandoned because of the crisis?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "blocked-government-business-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes crisis-related disruption from ordinary legislative opposition or administrative delay?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "blocked-government-business-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "continuity-of-authority", "name": "Continuity of authority", "description": "Examines the cabinet's mandate while resignation, replacement or an election is pending.", "findings": [ { "id": "interim-decision-limits", "name": "Interim decision limits", "description": "Record any change in status and the rules or conventions affecting decisions during the transition.", "questions": [ { "text": "Has the cabinet's authority changed formally or by convention, and what establishes the effective date?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "interim-decision-limits-q01" }, { "text": "Which proposed decisions require deferral, consultation or another safeguard under the applicable interim arrangements?", "kind": "action", "id": "interim-decision-limits-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "settlement-and-outcomes", "name": "Settlement and outcomes", "description": "Tracks attempts to restore viability or transfer government and evaluates whether the crisis has ended.", "rationale": "An announced agreement or resignation may begin a transition without settling support, authority or collective functioning.", "layers": [ { "id": "settlement-options", "name": "Settlement options", "description": "Examines politically feasible and institutionally available responses.", "findings": [ { "id": "credible-resolution-path", "name": "Credible resolution path", "description": "Record proposed settlements, required commitments and the actors able to deliver them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which actors must agree to a policy compromise, renewed coalition agreement, leadership change or replacement government?", "kind": "action", "id": "credible-resolution-path-q01" }, { "text": "What documented commitments and procedural steps make each proposed settlement feasible?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "credible-resolution-path-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "closure-and-cabinet-identity", "name": "Closure and cabinet identity", "description": "Distinguishes settlement of the crisis from the survival or termination of the original cabinet.", "findings": [ { "id": "verified-outcome", "name": "Verified outcome", "description": "Record the outcome, the evidence for closure and whether the resulting government counts as the same cabinet under an explicit convention.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observable event establishes resolution, and which threats remain unresolved after that event?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "verified-outcome-q01" }, { "text": "Under the chosen cabinet-identity convention, did the original cabinet survive, change composition or end?", "kind": "definition", "id": "verified-outcome-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": [ "The term has no single universally accepted operational definition; studies may distinguish threatened breakdown from actual cabinet termination.", "The listed kinds are overlapping descriptive categories, not a standardized classification.", "This account assumes cabinet means the political executive; jurisdiction-specific rules and terminology require verification." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of cabinet crisis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Crisis over parliamentary confidence", "Coalition breakdown", "Leadership conflict within the cabinet", "Policy dispute producing ministerial resignations" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of cabinet crisis 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": [ "Describing episodes of threatened or actual government breakdown in political reporting and historical analysis.", "Studying cabinet stability, coalition bargaining, and government duration.", "Explaining negotiations over cabinet reconstruction, government replacement, or early elections." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of cabinet crisis 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": [ "Loss of collective decision-making capacity.", "Delayed budgets, legislation, or executive decisions.", "Collapse of the governing coalition or resignation of the government.", "Uncertainty over who can command parliamentary confidence.", "Escalation into a constitutional crisis if actors contest the rules for government replacement." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of cabinet crisis 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": [ "In parliamentary systems, cabinet survival commonly depends on maintaining parliamentary confidence.", "In presidential systems, conflict or resignations among cabinet members need not threaten the president's tenure.", "Constitutional arrangements differ over government dismissal, caretaker authority, dissolution, and procedures for selecting a replacement government." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of cabinet crisis 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": "Constitutional crisis", "difference": "A constitutional crisis concerns contested or failing constitutional rules or authority; a cabinet crisis can be resolved through accepted procedures." }, { "name": "Coalition crisis", "difference": "A coalition crisis concerns relations among governing parties; a cabinet crisis can also occur within a single-party government." }, { "name": "Vote of no confidence", "difference": "A vote of no confidence is a formal parliamentary procedure; a cabinet crisis is a political situation that may occur without such a vote." }, { "name": "Cabinet reshuffle", "difference": "A reshuffle changes ministerial appointments and can be routine; a cabinet crisis threatens governmental continuity or collective functioning." }, { "name": "Government formation deadlock", "difference": "Formation deadlock concerns inability to establish a government; a cabinet crisis concerns the viability or functioning of a cabinet already in office, though the two can follow one another." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of cabinet crisis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works and comparative datasets define cabinet crisis, and how do their thresholds differ from journalistic and political usage?", "Should failed government formation without an incumbent cabinet under threat belong here or primarily in a government-formation model?", "How should this model recognise cabinet crises in systems where cabinet tenure does not depend on parliamentary confidence?", "Which convention should determine cabinet identity after a change of leader, coalition membership or formal reappointment?", "What minimum evidence should establish onset and closure when support negotiations are private and public claims conflict?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }