{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:01:59Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.8, "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: 01a094d9-29d5-7ec0-b110-47321e3a086f\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: debriefing\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 regi", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 64.7, "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: 01a094d9-29e2-7942-87cf-944c7af78107\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: debriefing\nRegistry id: vr.tr.debriefing\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCo" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:40:34+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "standards_and_regulation" ] }, "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-Q2669680", "registryId": "vr.tr.debriefing", "name": "debriefing", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q2669680/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.debriefing", "name": "debriefing", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a debriefing, assess whether its account and conclusions are usable, and support appropriate learning, clarification and follow-up.", "definition": "Debriefing is a structured exchange following an activity or experience that elicits participants' accounts, clarifies what occurred, and supports learning, evaluation, or disclosure of information withheld beforehand.", "scope_statement": "This model owns debriefing as a bounded process of eliciting and reviewing accounts after an activity, event or experience, including its knowledge products; it distinguishes the process from the event reviewed and records the particular debriefing tradition rather than assuming one universal method.", "in_scope": [ "The activity, event or experience being reviewed and the reason for reviewing it", "Participant accounts, supporting records and disagreements about what occurred", "Facilitation, questioning and reconstruction of the reviewed experience", "Interpretation of outcomes, decisions, assumptions and contributing conditions", "Conclusions, unresolved questions and agreed follow-up", "Participation conditions and restrictions on recording or reusing disclosures" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Planning and execution of the activity being reviewed", "Full incident investigations, adjudication and disciplinary proceedings", "Clinical assessment or treatment delivered alongside a debriefing", "General instruction or training that does not review a particular experience", "Long-term implementation of improvement actions", "Management of the organisation's complete knowledge repository" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "It refers back to an identifiable activity, event or experience rather than primarily preparing participants for a future one.", "It elicits or examines accounts of that experience; a status announcement or unexamined report alone does not establish a debriefing.", "Its questions seek clarification, interpretation, learning or participant understanding beyond merely listing what happened.", "Its remit separates review from any authority to investigate, impose consequences or provide treatment.", "Labels such as retrospective, after-action review or research-participant debriefing require an explicit relationship to this entry rather than automatic equivalence." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Debriefing purpose", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Learning; operational information gathering; research-participant explanation; support-oriented review; mixed; unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Determines which questions, outputs and completion criteria fit the session." }, { "name": "Reviewed experience", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "References to the activity, event, exercise or experience, with temporal boundaries", "why_it_matters": "Anchors accounts and prevents conclusions from silently extending beyond the reviewed material." }, { "name": "Elapsed time since experience", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Hours or days from the reviewed experience's end to the debriefing's start", "why_it_matters": "Provides context for recall, availability of records and urgency of follow-up." }, { "name": "Participant relationship to experience", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Participant; observer; facilitator; supervisor; affected party; other declared relationship", "why_it_matters": "Shows whose perspective is represented and where authority or experience differs." }, { "name": "Review method", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named protocol and version; locally defined sequence; unstructured; unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Makes the actual questioning and interpretation approach inspectable." }, { "name": "Account reconciliation state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Not compared; partly reconciled; agreed with reservations; materially disputed; insufficient evidence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents agreement, uncertainty and contradiction from being collapsed into one narrative." }, { "name": "Disclosure and reuse conditions", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Declared audience, attribution rules, recording permissions and exceptions", "why_it_matters": "Constrains what an agent may capture, summarise or distribute." }, { "name": "Follow-up readiness", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "No follow-up proposed; proposals pending; owners assigned; verification arranged; no action justified", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes useful conclusions from commitments that can actually be pursued." } ], "affordances": [ "Prepare a question sequence matched to the experience and declared debriefing purpose.", "Reconstruct an account while preserving attribution, uncertainty and conflicting recollections.", "Compare expected and observed outcomes without assuming every difference was an error.", "Separate observations, interpretations, proposed lessons and authorised commitments.", "Produce an audience-appropriate summary under the declared disclosure conditions.", "Route unresolved issues and agreed actions to appropriate owners for further work." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Structure a debriefing after an exercise, project or incident on the organiser's request.", "Record agreed lessons and actions with the participants' knowledge." ], "must_not": [ "Use a debriefing to assign blame or gather evidence against participants without telling them.", "Share what participants say beyond the agreed audience.", "Pressure people to relive traumatic events when they do not want to.", "Leave research participants deceived after a study when they are owed a debriefing." ], "requires_human": [ "Debriefing people after a traumatic incident, which needs trained staff.", "Using debriefing records in disciplinary or legal proceedings." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Honest debriefs need trust; misuse of what people say destroys it.", "Forcing talk after trauma can harm rather than help." ], "affected_parties": [ "Participants", "Research subjects", "Teams and their leaders" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "The person or organisation that runs the activity and calls the debrief.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Blame-focused debriefs make people hide mistakes next time.", "Psychological debriefing straight after trauma can worsen distress for some people." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, American Psychological Association, which requires debriefing after research." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Debriefing is used after projects, missions, exercises or incidents to compare participants' accounts and review outcomes.", "It supports organizational learning by identifying contributing conditions, unresolved questions and follow-up responsibilities." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Debriefing is a procedure whose identity depends on the purpose and content of an exchange rather than visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q2669680: debriefing", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2669680", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Debriefing", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debriefing", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "review-remit", "name": "Review remit", "description": "Identifies what is being debriefed and what the review is intended to accomplish.", "rationale": "A debriefing cannot be assessed without knowing its referent, purpose and limits of authority.", "layers": [ { "id": "experience-anchor", "name": "Experience anchor", "description": "Bounds the experience to which the debriefing refers.", "findings": [ { "id": "reviewed-experience-boundary", "name": "Reviewed experience boundary", "description": "Records the reviewed occurrence, its timeframe and any connected occurrences deliberately excluded.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which activity, event or experience is being debriefed, and where does the reviewed period begin and end?", "kind": "definition", "id": "reviewed-experience-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Which preceding or subsequent events supply context but are outside this review?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reviewed-experience-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "purpose-and-authority", "name": "Purpose and authority", "description": "Makes the intended outcome and the session's powers explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "declared-debriefing-contract", "name": "Declared debriefing contract", "description": "Records the debriefing type, intended knowledge outcome and boundaries with investigation, evaluation or support.", "questions": [ { "text": "What should participants or sponsors understand at the end that they do not understand now?", "kind": "definition", "id": "declared-debriefing-contract-q01" }, { "text": "Can this session make evaluative or operational decisions, or must those be referred elsewhere?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "declared-debriefing-contract-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "participation-and-disclosure", "name": "Participation and disclosure", "description": "Describes whose accounts can be heard and under what conditions they may be used.", "rationale": "Accounts depend on access, participation and disclosure conditions; silence cannot safely be interpreted without this context.", "layers": [ { "id": "perspective-coverage", "name": "Perspective coverage", "description": "Identifies represented and missing perspectives on the experience.", "findings": [ { "id": "participant-vantage-points", "name": "Participant vantage points", "description": "Relates each contributor to what they experienced, observed or learned indirectly.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which parts of the experience could each contributor observe directly?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "participant-vantage-points-q01" }, { "text": "Whose relevant perspective is absent, and how does that limit the review?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "participant-vantage-points-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "disclosure-conditions", "name": "Disclosure conditions", "description": "Captures participation expectations, power relationships and permitted handling of accounts.", "findings": [ { "id": "account-use-agreement", "name": "Account use agreement", "description": "Records what contributors were told about attendance, attribution, recording, audience and exceptions.", "questions": [ { "text": "What participation requirements and disclosure conditions were communicated before accounts were elicited?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "account-use-agreement-q01" }, { "text": "What may an agent record or share, with whom, and under which attribution restrictions?", "kind": "action", "id": "account-use-agreement-q02" }, { "text": "What route exists to decline a question, correct an account or raise a concern outside the group?", "kind": "action", "id": "account-use-agreement-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "experience-reconstruction", "name": "Experience reconstruction", "description": "Builds an inspectable account from recollections and available records.", "rationale": "Debriefing conclusions need a traceable account that preserves the difference between observation, recollection and inference.", "layers": [ { "id": "account-elicitation", "name": "Account elicitation", "description": "Captures the sequence of events and what participants understood at the time.", "findings": [ { "id": "situated-event-account", "name": "Situated event account", "description": "Records actions, cues, decisions and contemporaneous understanding without substituting later knowledge.", "questions": [ { "text": "What did participants report happening at each consequential point in the experience?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "situated-event-account-q01" }, { "text": "What information and expectations did they report having when they acted?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "situated-event-account-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "corroboration-and-disagreement", "name": "Corroboration and disagreement", "description": "Compares accounts with one another and with available records.", "findings": [ { "id": "reconstruction-confidence", "name": "Reconstruction confidence", "description": "Distinguishes supported elements, unresolved discrepancies and gaps in the reconstructed experience.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which records or independent accounts support each consequential statement?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "reconstruction-confidence-q01" }, { "text": "Which discrepancies remain, and what additional evidence could resolve them?", "kind": "action", "id": "reconstruction-confidence-q02" }, { "text": "Which conclusions must remain provisional because the account is incomplete or disputed?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reconstruction-confidence-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "reflective-examination", "name": "Reflective examination", "description": "Examines the experience through a declared questioning method and bounded interpretation.", "rationale": "The model must expose how a debriefing moves from recounting events to explanations and potential lessons.", "layers": [ { "id": "facilitated-inquiry", "name": "Facilitated inquiry", "description": "Records how questioning is organised and adapted during the review.", "findings": [ { "id": "questioning-sequence", "name": "Questioning sequence", "description": "Identifies the protocol or actual sequence used to elicit accounts, explore meaning and close discussion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which protocol or locally defined sequence guides this debriefing?", "kind": "definition", "id": "questioning-sequence-q01" }, { "text": "When should the facilitator probe further, redirect discussion, pause or refer a topic elsewhere?", "kind": "action", "id": "questioning-sequence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-learning", "name": "Interpretation and learning", "description": "Develops explanations and candidate lessons while retaining alternatives and contextual limits.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-explanations", "name": "Bounded explanations", "description": "Links interpreted outcomes to supporting accounts, alternative explanations and conditions of applicability.", "questions": [ { "text": "Where outcomes or understanding differed from expectations, which explanations fit the available account?", "kind": "definition", "id": "bounded-explanations-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes a proposed contributing condition from a retrospective assumption?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "bounded-explanations-q02" }, { "text": "Under what circumstances would a proposed lesson fail to apply?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-explanations-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "closure-and-transfer", "name": "Closure and transfer", "description": "Turns the review into usable outputs, explicit unresolved issues and appropriately assigned follow-up.", "rationale": "Holding a session does not establish that its conclusions are accepted, its purpose was met or its lessons were transferred.", "layers": [ { "id": "review-output", "name": "Review output", "description": "Defines what the debriefing leaves behind and how contributors can qualify it.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-debrief-record", "name": "Qualified debrief record", "description": "Separates reconstructed events, interpretations, dissent, unanswered questions and proposed actions in the retained output.", "questions": [ { "text": "What record or participant explanation fulfils this debriefing's declared purpose?", "kind": "definition", "id": "qualified-debrief-record-q01" }, { "text": "How can contributors correct inaccuracies or preserve disagreement before the output is reused?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-debrief-record-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "follow-up-and-completion", "name": "Follow-up and completion", "description": "Connects conclusions to authorised next steps and checks whether the review met its purpose.", "findings": [ { "id": "lesson-to-action-handoff", "name": "Lesson-to-action handoff", "description": "Records accepted actions, owners, referral destinations and evidence needed to assess the debriefing's result.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which proposed changes or unresolved questions have an accepting owner and a defined next step?", "kind": "action", "id": "lesson-to-action-handoff-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence will show that the debriefing achieved its stated purpose beyond attendance or satisfaction?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "lesson-to-action-handoff-q02" }, { "text": "Which follow-up activities belong to another process after this debriefing closes?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "lesson-to-action-handoff-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "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": [ "No sense is recorded; the definition covers several established uses rather than assuming a particular profession.", "Debriefing is ordinarily a practice or process, not an independent academic discipline.", "Psychological debriefing is a distinct intervention category; its evidence and applicable guidance require separate verification from operational or educational debriefing." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of debriefing 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": [ "Operational or mission debriefing", "After-action review", "Simulation-based educational debriefing", "Research-participant debriefing", "Intelligence debriefing", "Psychological debriefing following a distressing event" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of debriefing 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": [ "Reviewing military missions and emergency-response operations.", "Helping learners examine decisions and performance after simulations.", "Explaining a study's purpose and any deception to research participants.", "Eliciting information from people returning from assignments or significant encounters.", "Capturing lessons from projects, exercises, and incidents." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of debriefing 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": [ "Blame or unequal authority suppresses candid participation.", "Hindsight bias turns uncertain decisions into apparently obvious mistakes.", "Leading questions and group conformity distort participants' accounts.", "Sensitive personal or operational information is disclosed without appropriate safeguards.", "Lessons are recorded without assigning responsibility for follow-up." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of debriefing 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": "Briefing", "difference": "Briefing usually prepares participants for an activity; debriefing examines an activity or experience afterward." }, { "name": "After-action review", "difference": "An after-action review specifically compares intended and actual performance to identify improvements; debriefing also includes information elicitation and research disclosure." }, { "name": "Interview", "difference": "An interview is a general questioning format; debriefing is anchored to a preceding activity or experience." }, { "name": "Incident investigation", "difference": "An investigation establishes causes through evidence gathering and analysis; a debriefing primarily elicits and examines participants' accounts and may contribute to that investigation." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of debriefing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does vr.tr.debriefing intentionally encompass operational, educational, research-participant and support-oriented uses, or does the registry intend a narrower meaning?", "Which existing Vercy world models already cover debriefing or adjacent review processes, requiring a link rather than a separate publication?", "Which authoritative sources define the boundaries among debriefing, after-action review, retrospective, interview and incident investigation in the intended domains?", "Which debriefing variants require different process layers, particularly when explanation to participants is more central than reconstruction of their experience?", "Which domain-specific evidence supports particular facilitation methods and outcome measures, and what limits or contraindications must those variants record?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 29 } }