{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:19:16Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 15.4, "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: 01a0951f-e7f6-7510-a788-4de517e0e0f8\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Hot reading\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 reg", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.7, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a0951f-e7e5-78e2-bf3f-90babf8a93ff\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Hot reading\nRegistry id: vr.tr.hot-reading\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": "2026-10-06T08:44:32+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:29+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q2607648", "registryId": "vr.tr.hot-reading", "name": "Hot reading", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q2607648/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.hot-reading", "name": "Hot reading", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, document and assess hot reading by tracing how prior information about a subject becomes an apparently extraordinary personal revelation.", "definition": "Hot reading is a technique in which a reader uses previously obtained information about a person while presenting that information as if acquired through psychic, supernatural, or otherwise extraordinary means.", "scope_statement": "This model owns hot reading as an information-use technique in which previously acquired facts about a subject inform a reading while their ordinary source is concealed or misrepresented; it does not classify hot reading as a discipline or validate paranormal claims.", "in_scope": [ "Acquisition and availability of subject-specific information before its apparent revelation", "Matching prior information to the person receiving the reading", "Transfer of information through researchers, intermediaries or technical channels", "Transformation of prior information into statements presented during a reading", "Disclosure, consent and evidence needed to assess suspected instances" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Cold reading based solely on general statements, observation and live feedback", "Disclosed biographical research and ordinary preparation for an interview", "The truth or falsity of paranormal abilities in general", "Complete models of performers, audiences or psychic-service organisations", "General surveillance, data brokerage and personal-data security practices" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Subject-specific information is available before the statement that appears to reveal it; an accurate statement alone does not establish hot reading.", "There is evidence connecting the prior information to the reader or an assisting information channel, rather than merely showing that the information existed somewhere.", "The ordinary source of the information is concealed or misrepresented in the presentation; openly attributed research does not meet this model's core definition.", "The apparent revelation depends on prior information, distinguishing it from a statement derived only from observation, broad guessing or feedback during the reading.", "A single reading may combine hot reading with other techniques, so classification applies to supported statements or sequences rather than automatically to the whole performance." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Assessment status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unassessed | suspected | supported | contradicted | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Separates an allegation from an assessment supported by evidence." }, { "name": "Prior-information source", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "public record | public online material | subject submission | prior interaction | intermediary | other documented source | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the ordinary route by which a seemingly surprising fact could have become available." }, { "name": "Information lead time", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "seconds, minutes or days between documented information access and the corresponding statement; unknown if timing is unestablished", "why_it_matters": "Tests whether the information preceded its apparent revelation." }, { "name": "Subject linkage", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "evidenced association between a prior-information record and the person addressed", "why_it_matters": "Prevents information about a namesake or different audience member from being treated as explanatory evidence." }, { "name": "Reader access", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "demonstrated | plausible but unverified | evidence against access | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes information availability from evidence that the reader could actually use it." }, { "name": "Source presentation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "ordinary source disclosed | source omitted | extraordinary source implied | extraordinary source explicitly claimed | unclear", "why_it_matters": "Records how the audience was invited to understand the reader's knowledge." }, { "name": "Statement derivation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "prior information | live elicitation | observation | general statement | mixed | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Supports statement-level analysis when several techniques occur together." }, { "name": "Participant understanding", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "documented informed agreement | partial disclosure | documented misunderstanding | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes an agreed performance context from an undisclosed claim about how personal knowledge was obtained." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether a reported revelation has a documented prior-information pathway.", "Map statements in a reading to candidate sources and their access times.", "Separate supported hot-reading elements from cold-reading elements and unresolved statements.", "Identify missing evidence that would change an assessment.", "Review disclosure and personal-information handling before retaining or sharing an analysis." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain hot reading and help people recognize it in claimed psychic performances.", "Support consumer protection or research into deceptive practices." ], "must_not": [ "Gather private information about a person to deceive them about psychic powers.", "Help anyone run readings that exploit grieving or vulnerable people.", "Accuse a named person of hot reading without evidence.", "Use private data obtained through monitoring to impress or manipulate a user." ], "requires_human": [ "Reporting a suspected fraud to authorities." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Hot reading exploits trust, often of grieving people, for money or influence.", "Collecting information about people for deception violates their privacy." ], "affected_parties": [ "Grieving people", "Audience members", "People whose data is collected" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; it is a deceptive practice.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Victims can lose money and make harmful decisions based on fake readings.", "False hope or fear from readings can cause emotional harm." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "This technique is encountered in mentalism and staged psychic readings where prior knowledge supports an apparently extraordinary revelation.", "It is also examined in investigations of deceptive readings by comparing the information presented with information available before the encounter." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The General Data Protection Regulation, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, applies when gathering or using personal information falls within its scope.", "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, applies to misleading commercial readings offered to consumers within its scope." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "This information-use technique cannot be identified reliably from visible performance cues because recognition requires evidence of prior information access." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q2607648: Hot reading", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2607648", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Hot reading", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_reading", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "technique-boundary", "name": "Technique boundary", "description": "Establishes what counts as hot reading and the level at which the classification applies.", "rationale": "Personal accuracy, preparation and deception are not interchangeable indicators of this technique.", "layers": [ { "id": "prior-knowledge-condition", "name": "Prior knowledge condition", "description": "Tests whether subject-specific information existed in an accessible form before its apparent revelation.", "findings": [ { "id": "information-precedes-revelation", "name": "Information precedes revelation", "description": "Record the candidate fact, the apparent revelation and evidence of their temporal relationship without presuming access.", "questions": [ { "text": "What subject-specific information was allegedly known before the reader stated it?", "kind": "definition", "id": "information-precedes-revelation-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence dates the reader's or assistant's access relative to the statement?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "information-precedes-revelation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-techniques", "name": "Neighbouring techniques", "description": "Separates concealed prior knowledge from live inference and disclosed preparation.", "findings": [ { "id": "statement-level-classification", "name": "Statement-level classification", "description": "Assess individual statements or connected sequences before assigning a classification to an entire reading.", "questions": [ { "text": "Could this statement have arisen from visible cues, broad wording or information supplied during the exchange?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "statement-level-classification-q01" }, { "text": "Was prior research openly attributed, concealed or represented as another source of knowledge?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "statement-level-classification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "information-origin-and-subject-linkage", "name": "Information origin and subject linkage", "description": "Tracks where personal facts originated and whether they concern the person addressed.", "rationale": "A candidate source explains nothing unless its content and subject match the apparent revelation.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-lineage", "name": "Source lineage", "description": "Records the original information source and any intervening copies or summaries.", "findings": [ { "id": "traceable-personal-fact", "name": "Traceable personal fact", "description": "Connect each candidate fact to an inspectable source while preserving uncertainty about who accessed it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which record, submission or prior interaction contains the relevant fact?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-personal-fact-q01" }, { "text": "Does the available source preserve what was accessible at the time of the reading?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "traceable-personal-fact-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "identity-resolution", "name": "Identity resolution", "description": "Examines the association between information records and the reading's recipient.", "findings": [ { "id": "recipient-match", "name": "Recipient match", "description": "Record evidence that the candidate information concerns the actual recipient rather than another person.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence links the source record to the person addressed?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "recipient-match-q01" }, { "text": "Could a namesake, shared family detail or incorrect audience identification explain the apparent match?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "recipient-match-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "reader-access-and-delivery", "name": "Reader access and delivery", "description": "Models the path from acquired information to its availability during the reading.", "rationale": "Public availability alone cannot demonstrate that information reached the reader.", "layers": [ { "id": "access-pathway", "name": "Access pathway", "description": "Identifies documented connections among sources, intermediaries and the reader.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidenced-transfer", "name": "Evidenced transfer", "description": "Represent direct access or assisted transfer as an evidence-backed relation, not an assumed mechanism.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows that the reader or an assistant obtained the relevant information?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidenced-transfer-q01" }, { "text": "Which links in the proposed transfer pathway remain unverified?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidenced-transfer-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "delivery-timing", "name": "Delivery timing", "description": "Distinguishes preparation before a session from information supplied during it but before a statement.", "findings": [ { "id": "knowledge-availability-window", "name": "Knowledge availability window", "description": "Record when information could have been used and distinguish new external input from recipient feedback.", "questions": [ { "text": "How long before the corresponding statement was the information demonstrably available to the reader?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "knowledge-availability-window-q01" }, { "text": "Was information introduced during the session through an external source or through the recipient's own answers?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "knowledge-availability-window-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "revelation-and-evidence", "name": "Revelation and evidence", "description": "Compares what was said with prior information and with the full interaction.", "rationale": "Selective recollection and edited highlights can exaggerate both apparent accuracy and confidence in a proposed explanation.", "layers": [ { "id": "statement-correspondence", "name": "Statement correspondence", "description": "Examines the specificity and completeness of the match between a statement and a candidate source.", "findings": [ { "id": "source-to-statement-match", "name": "Source-to-statement match", "description": "Preserve the actual wording and identify which details match, conflict with or go beyond the prior information.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact details in the statement correspond to the candidate source?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "source-to-statement-match-q01" }, { "text": "Which details were incorrect, absent from the source or added by the recipient?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "source-to-statement-match-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-quality", "name": "Assessment quality", "description": "Evaluates whether the available record supports a mechanism claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-mechanism-assessment", "name": "Supported mechanism assessment", "description": "Distinguish documented access and use from an explanation inferred only from accuracy or opportunity.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the assessment based on a complete recording, contemporaneous records, testimony or an edited account?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-mechanism-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence would distinguish hot reading from the remaining plausible explanations?", "kind": "action", "id": "supported-mechanism-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "disclosure-and-information-handling", "name": "Disclosure and information handling", "description": "Records the presentation context and governs handling of personal information gathered during assessment.", "rationale": "The same use of prior facts has different implications when participants understand the performance and when they misunderstand the source of knowledge.", "layers": [ { "id": "audience-understanding", "name": "Audience understanding", "description": "Captures explicit claims, contextual framing and relevant disclosures.", "findings": [ { "id": "claimed-source-of-knowledge", "name": "Claimed source of knowledge", "description": "Record what the reader represented and what participants were told about research or assistance.", "questions": [ { "text": "What source of knowledge did the reader explicitly claim or contextually imply?", "kind": "definition", "id": "claimed-source-of-knowledge-q01" }, { "text": "What disclosure about prior information was provided, to whom and at what point?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claimed-source-of-knowledge-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-data-handling", "name": "Assessment data handling", "description": "Limits unnecessary reproduction of the personal facts used to assess a reading.", "findings": [ { "id": "proportionate-evidence-record", "name": "Proportionate evidence record", "description": "Preserve enough evidence to support the assessment while accounting for permissions and sensitive third-party details.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which personal details are necessary to demonstrate the source-to-statement connection, and which can be redacted?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-evidence-record-q01" }, { "text": "What permissions or restrictions govern retaining and sharing the source material and reading record?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-evidence-record-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 intended sense is assumed to be the psychic-reading and mentalism technique; no sense was supplied.", "Hot reading is a technique, not ordinarily an academic discipline or field of knowledge.", "These statements are recalled general knowledge; attributing hot reading to a particular practitioner requires specific evidence." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Hot reading 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": [ "Mentalism performances that simulate extraordinary knowledge of audience members.", "Purported psychic readings or mediumship in which prior knowledge is concealed.", "Demonstrations explaining how apparently paranormal revelations can be produced by ordinary information gathering." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Hot reading 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": [ "Incorrect or misattributed prior information produces false personal claims.", "Discovery of the information source exposes the concealed method.", "Undisclosed use can exploit grief or vulnerability and support financial deception.", "Obtaining or disclosing personal information can intrude on privacy." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Hot reading 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": "Cold reading", "difference": "Cold reading develops apparently personal knowledge through observation, general statements, and the subject's responses; hot reading relies on information obtained beforehand." }, { "name": "Mentalism", "difference": "Mentalism is a performance genre; hot reading is one possible technique used within it." }, { "name": "Mediumship", "difference": "Mediumship involves purported communication with spirits; hot reading is an information-based technique that can simulate such communication without establishing that it occurred." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Hot reading this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which authoritative accounts should establish the working definition, particularly whether concealed prior research without an extraordinary claim qualifies as hot reading?", "Does established usage include information obtained during a session but before its apparent revelation, or should that mechanism receive a narrower classification?", "What evidence threshold should distinguish suspected hot reading from a supported finding when access is documented but use is not directly observed?", "How should general entertainment disclaimers affect classification when the source of specific personal information remains undisclosed?", "Does the existing Vercy catalogue already contain a model covering this technique to which vr.tr.hot-reading should link?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 14, "questions": 24 } }