{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:30:49Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23.5, "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: 01a0952a-73fd-7170-877a-4c3905bc6ccf\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: intelligence cycle\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.PRC\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 67.8, "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: 01a0952a-7405-70d3-ae6a-9a7f3d4244e8\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: intelligence cycle\nRegistry id: vr.tr.intelligence-cycle\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.PRC\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this en" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:14:43+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:30+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q3268831", "registryId": "vr.tr.intelligence-cycle", "name": "intelligence cycle", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.PRC" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q3268831/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.intelligence-cycle", "name": "intelligence cycle", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise, assess and support an intelligence cycle by tracing intelligence needs through collection, assessment, delivery and feedback while respecting uncertainty and authority.", "definition": "The intelligence cycle is an iterative framework for organizing the activities through which decision-makers' information requirements guide collection, processing, analysis, dissemination, and feedback to produce and refine intelligence.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the intelligence cycle as an iterative process connecting decision needs to evidence-based intelligence and subsequent revision, including its declared process variant, handoffs, constraints and completion criteria.", "in_scope": [ "Intelligence requirements, intended decisions and priorities", "Collection tasking, coverage gaps and evidence intake", "Processing, exploitation and preservation of evidence lineage", "Analysis, uncertainty assessment and intelligence production", "Dissemination, consumer feedback and changes to requirements" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Detailed operation of individual collection sensors or platforms", "The complete structure and administration of intelligence organisations", "Domain models of the people, organisations or events being assessed", "Execution of policy, military or commercial decisions informed by intelligence", "Covert action and other operations that pursue effects beyond acquiring or assessing information" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An instance connects information work to an identifiable intelligence requirement and intended decision or consumer, rather than merely accumulating data.", "It distinguishes acquired information from assessed judgments and permits judgments to be traced to their evidential basis.", "It includes a route for feedback, collection gaps or changed circumstances to revise earlier work; a mandatory linear stage sequence is not the defining test.", "It extends across tasking, evidence handling, assessment and delivery, whereas an analytic technique or collection operation covers only part of that process.", "It declares the process variant being used so that differently named or combined stages can be compared without assuming one universal formulation." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Cycle formulation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named formulation or locally defined stages, with version and responsible authority", "why_it_matters": "Establishes which activities and handoffs count as part of this instance without treating one stage taxonomy as universal." }, { "name": "Requirement-to-decision linkage", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links among intelligence requirements, consumers, intended decisions and decision deadlines", "why_it_matters": "Makes relevance and timeliness assessable against the actual need." }, { "name": "Activity state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Per activity: not started, active, blocked, under review, completed or superseded", "why_it_matters": "Represents concurrent work and rework without forcing the whole cycle into one stage." }, { "name": "Requirement coverage", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Per requirement: unaddressed, partially addressed, provisionally answered or accepted as answered; with assessment criteria", "why_it_matters": "Separates the existence of collected material from satisfaction of an intelligence need." }, { "name": "Time remaining to decision", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Hours or days between assessment time and the relevant decision deadline", "why_it_matters": "Supports choices between further collection, immediate qualified delivery and escalation." }, { "name": "Evidence lineage", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links from judgments to evidence items, originating sources and processing transformations", "why_it_matters": "Allows review of support, dependence and information loss." }, { "name": "Judgment confidence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Declared confidence scale with rationale, assessed separately for each key judgment", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a single overall confidence label from hiding differences in evidential support." }, { "name": "Handling and release constraints", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Applicable permissions, restrictions, recipients and approving authorities", "why_it_matters": "Determines which collection, processing and dissemination actions are permitted." }, { "name": "Feedback disposition", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Awaiting feedback, accepted, clarification requested, retasking required, superseded or closed", "why_it_matters": "Records whether delivery resolved the need or initiated another iteration." } ], "affordances": [ "Translate a decision need into prioritised intelligence requirements and explicit acceptance criteria.", "Identify evidence gaps and propose collection tasks within recorded authority and resource limits.", "Trace an assessment back through processing steps to supporting and conflicting evidence.", "Review alternative explanations and flag unsupported judgments or unexamined source dependence.", "Prepare a timely intelligence product for authorised recipients with uncertainty and limitations visible.", "Use consumer feedback or changed evidence to recommend retasking, revision, correction or closure." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain the intelligence cycle as a framework from public sources.", "Support lawful analysis for an authorized organization using sources it may access." ], "must_not": [ "Collect or compile information on individuals without lawful basis.", "Help target journalists, activists, opponents or minorities.", "Present analysis as fact without stating sources and confidence.", "Disseminate intelligence beyond those cleared to receive it." ], "requires_human": [ "Setting collection requirements about specific people.", "Sharing intelligence products with other organizations or states." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Intelligence work can protect people or be turned against them; oversight decides which.", "Errors in analysis have led to wrongful harm and wars." ], "affected_parties": [ "People under surveillance", "Decision-makers relying on the product", "The public" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "The organization that runs the process, under the oversight its law provides.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Biased requirements and analysis confirm what decision-makers want to hear.", "Overbroad collection intrudes on the privacy of uninvolved people." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "The intelligence cycle organizes information work in security, defence, law enforcement and other decision-support settings.", "It connects information requirements with collection, processing, analysis and delivery, while feedback helps refine subsequent work.", "The framework is used to assign responsibilities and trace how evidence supports assessments without assuming that real work follows a rigid sequence." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "Intelligence Community Directive 203, issued by the United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence, establishes analytic standards for covered United States intelligence analysis." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "The intelligence cycle is an abstract process framework and cannot be identified by visual appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q3268831: intelligence cycle", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3268831", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Intelligence cycle", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_cycle", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "requirements-and-cycle-framing", "name": "Requirements and cycle framing", "description": "Connects the cycle's chosen formulation to the decisions and intelligence needs it serves.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish purposeful intelligence work from general information gathering and understand which process conventions apply.", "layers": [ { "id": "process-formulation", "name": "Process formulation", "description": "Records the adopted account of the cycle and how it maps to actual work.", "findings": [ { "id": "declared-cycle-boundary", "name": "Declared cycle boundary", "description": "Record the selected formulation, its owner and the activities, iterations and handoffs included in this instance.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which formulation defines this intelligence cycle, and how does it name or combine its activities?", "kind": "definition", "id": "declared-cycle-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Where does this cycle begin and end relative to continuing intelligence work and downstream decision execution?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "declared-cycle-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "decision-linked-requirements", "name": "Decision-linked requirements", "description": "Makes the intended use, priority and sufficiency of intelligence explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "answerable-intelligence-needs", "name": "Answerable intelligence needs", "description": "Record what the consumer needs to know, why it matters, when it is needed and what would constitute a sufficient answer.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which decision, consumer and deadline does each intelligence requirement support?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "answerable-intelligence-needs-q01" }, { "text": "What criteria distinguish an unanswered, partially answered and sufficiently answered requirement?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "answerable-intelligence-needs-q02" }, { "text": "Who may reprioritise or withdraw a requirement when needs conflict or circumstances change?", "kind": "action", "id": "answerable-intelligence-needs-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "collection-tasking-and-gaps", "name": "Collection tasking and gaps", "description": "Relates missing knowledge to feasible, authorised collection and the material actually obtained.", "rationale": "Collection must address intelligence needs, and task completion must be distinguished from obtaining useful evidence.", "layers": [ { "id": "gap-to-task-mapping", "name": "Gap-to-task mapping", "description": "Turns unresolved requirements into collection proposals with explicit limits.", "findings": [ { "id": "justified-collection-tasks", "name": "Justified collection tasks", "description": "Record the gap each task addresses, expected contribution, responsible collector, timing and authorisation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which unresolved requirement or competing explanation would this collection task help resolve?", "kind": "definition", "id": "justified-collection-tasks-q01" }, { "text": "What authority, access, resource and handling constraints govern the proposed collection?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "justified-collection-tasks-q02" }, { "text": "Should the task proceed, be redirected or be cancelled given its expected contribution before the decision deadline?", "kind": "action", "id": "justified-collection-tasks-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "collection-return-assessment", "name": "Collection return assessment", "description": "Evaluates what collection produced and which gaps remain.", "findings": [ { "id": "returns-and-residual-gaps", "name": "Returns and residual gaps", "description": "Record collected material, its origin, relevant coverage and the limitations of unsuccessful or incomplete collection.", "questions": [ { "text": "What material was obtained, through which collection route, and with what known origin and acquisition time?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "returns-and-residual-gaps-q01" }, { "text": "Which gaps remain, and does a missing observation reflect observed absence, inadequate coverage or collection failure?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "returns-and-residual-gaps-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "processing-and-evidence-lineage", "name": "Processing and evidence lineage", "description": "Tracks how acquired material becomes usable evidence without losing its origin or limitations.", "rationale": "An assessment can be undermined by transformation errors, missing context or multiple reports derived from the same source.", "layers": [ { "id": "material-transformation", "name": "Material transformation", "description": "Records processing and exploitation steps relevant to later interpretation.", "findings": [ { "id": "inspectable-transformations", "name": "Inspectable transformations", "description": "Record transformations such as translation, transcription, extraction or aggregation together with responsible methods and quality limitations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which transformations produced this usable evidence item from the acquired material, and who or what performed them?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "inspectable-transformations-q01" }, { "text": "What ambiguity, omission or error could those transformations introduce into the subsequent assessment?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "inspectable-transformations-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "source-dependence-and-access", "name": "Source dependence and access", "description": "Preserves distinctions among originating sources, reporting channels and accessible evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-origin-and-dependence", "name": "Evidence origin and dependence", "description": "Record known or suspected common origins, source-access limitations and restrictions affecting verification or reuse.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which apparently separate reports share an originating source or repeat one another, and which relationships remain unknown?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-origin-and-dependence-q01" }, { "text": "Which evidence can the analyst inspect directly, and which must be assessed through summaries or restricted intermediaries?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "evidence-origin-and-dependence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "analysis-and-judgment", "name": "Analysis and judgment", "description": "Connects evidence to qualified answers while exposing assumptions and competing explanations.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish observations, interpretations and forecasts to assess whether intelligence judgments are defensible.", "layers": [ { "id": "evidence-to-explanation", "name": "Evidence to explanation", "description": "Makes the reasoning behind intelligence judgments reviewable.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-and-contested-judgments", "name": "Supported and contested judgments", "description": "Record each key judgment, its supporting and conflicting evidence, inferential steps and material alternatives.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which statements are observations, assumptions, interpretations or forecasts, and how does each contribute to answering the requirement?", "kind": "definition", "id": "supported-and-contested-judgments-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports or contradicts each material explanation, including evidence that may reflect deception or reporting bias?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-and-contested-judgments-q02" }, { "text": "What additional observation would most usefully discriminate between the remaining explanations?", "kind": "action", "id": "supported-and-contested-judgments-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "uncertainty-and-review", "name": "Uncertainty and review", "description": "Assesses the strength, sensitivity and review status of proposed intelligence conclusions.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-assessment-readiness", "name": "Qualified assessment readiness", "description": "Record confidence, likelihood terminology where applicable, unresolved disagreements and the basis for releasing an assessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "How are confidence in evidential support and likelihood of an assessed event expressed and kept distinct?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "qualified-assessment-readiness-q01" }, { "text": "Which assumptions or unresolved disagreements could materially change the key judgments?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-assessment-readiness-q02" }, { "text": "Should the assessment be released with qualifications, undergo further review or trigger additional collection before its deadline?", "kind": "action", "id": "qualified-assessment-readiness-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "dissemination-feedback-and-retasking", "name": "Dissemination, feedback and retasking", "description": "Closes the connection between intelligence production and consumer needs while supporting correction and renewed work.", "rationale": "Production alone does not establish that intelligence reached the right consumer, remained usable or satisfied the requirement.", "layers": [ { "id": "authorised-and-timely-delivery", "name": "Authorised and timely delivery", "description": "Records the intelligence product, intended recipients and conditions of release.", "findings": [ { "id": "consumer-ready-release", "name": "Consumer-ready release", "description": "Record which version was delivered, its relevant time horizon, recipient permissions and whether qualifications survived presentation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which recipients are authorised to receive this product, and what approval or sanitisation is required?", "kind": "action", "id": "consumer-ready-release-q01" }, { "text": "Did the relevant consumer receive the assessment before the decision deadline with its key uncertainties and limitations intact?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "consumer-ready-release-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "feedback-and-cycle-renewal", "name": "Feedback and cycle renewal", "description": "Uses consumer response and subsequent evidence to determine the next state of the work.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-revision-or-closure", "name": "Explicit revision or closure", "description": "Record requirement satisfaction, feedback, correction triggers and decisions to reopen, retask, supersede or close the cycle.", "questions": [ { "text": "What feedback establishes whether the intelligence answered the requirement, and whose assessment is it?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "explicit-revision-or-closure-q01" }, { "text": "What new evidence, elapsed time or changed decision need requires reassessment or notification of previous recipients?", "kind": "action", "id": "explicit-revision-or-closure-q02" }, { "text": "What justifies closure, and which unresolved gaps or monitoring obligations remain?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "explicit-revision-or-closure-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": [ "Stage counts and boundaries are not universal; verify the formulation used by the institution being described.", "The cycle is an organizing model, and its adequacy as a description of actual intelligence practice is debated because activities overlap and interact.", "Doctrine titles, editions, and exact terminology should be checked before formal citation; these references are recalled, not consulted." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of intelligence cycle 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": [ "Five-stage formulations combining planning and direction, collection, processing, analysis and production, and dissemination", "Six-stage formulations treating evaluation and feedback as a distinct stage" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of intelligence cycle this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "US Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 2-0, Joint Intelligence, describes the joint intelligence process.", "NATO Allied Joint Publication AJP-2, Allied Joint Doctrine for Intelligence, Counter-Intelligence and Security, provides allied intelligence doctrine." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of intelligence cycle 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": [ "Organizing national-security intelligence work around policymakers' requirements", "Supporting military planning and operations", "Structuring criminal intelligence work in law enforcement", "Managing cyber threat intelligence collection, analysis, and distribution", "Organizing competitive intelligence for business decisions" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of intelligence cycle 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": [ "Poorly specified requirements generate information that does not answer the decision-maker's question.", "Collection gaps, unreliable sources, or adversarial deception distort the evidence available.", "Analytical bias and pressure to support preferred policies distort judgments.", "Processing or dissemination delays make intelligence arrive too late to support decisions.", "Treating the cycle as a rigid sequence obscures concurrent work and weakens feedback." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of intelligence cycle 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": [ "US civilian and military formulations differ in stage labels and in whether evaluation and feedback constitute a separate stage.", "NATO formulations commonly group activities under direction, collection, processing, and dissemination, with analysis included within processing." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of intelligence cycle 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": "Intelligence analysis", "difference": "Analysis evaluates and interprets information; the intelligence cycle also covers requirements, collection, processing, and delivery." }, { "name": "Intelligence collection", "difference": "Collection acquires information; the cycle connects acquisition to requirements and the production and use of intelligence." }, { "name": "Intelligence preparation of the operational environment", "difference": "This is a structured analytical activity focused on an operational environment, rather than the overall management of intelligence work." }, { "name": "OODA loop", "difference": "The OODA loop models observation, orientation, decision, and action; the intelligence cycle principally organizes intelligence support to decision-making." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of intelligence cycle this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which authoritative formulations should be represented, and how should differences in stage boundaries and terminology be mapped without implying equivalence?", "How should a bounded cycle instance be identified within continuous, overlapping intelligence work serving several consumers?", "Which critiques of the cycle's adequacy should change the model, particularly where tasking, analysis and collection occur concurrently?", "Which requirement-satisfaction and timeliness measures are defensible across national-security, law-enforcement and commercial settings?", "Does an existing Vercy world model already cover this concept, requiring the registry entry to link to it instead of creating a separate publication?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 32 } }