{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:28:25Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.3, "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: 01a09527-f6e1-7230-b05d-735aaa13343b\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Indian Peace Keeping Force\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: SOC.ORG\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batc", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 86.4, "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: 01a09527-f6e3-7ce3-bec6-05c161676efc\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Indian Peace Keeping Force\nRegistry id: vr.tr.indian-peace-keeping-force\nPlane / domain: SOC / SOC.ORG\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames fol" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:43:45+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "standards_and_regulation" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:30+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q3358912", "registryId": "vr.tr.indian-peace-keeping-force", "name": "Indian Peace Keeping Force", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "SOC.ORG" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q3358912/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.indian-peace-keeping-force", "name": "Indian Peace Keeping Force", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify the Indian Peace Keeping Force, reconstruct its changing authority and organisational state, and assess which historical actions can reliably be attributed to it.", "definition": "The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was an Indian military force deployed in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 1990 under the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, initially to support a ceasefire and militant disarmament but subsequently engaged in combat against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the identity, mandate, command relationships, deployment state, accountability and closure of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), registry entry vr.tr.indian-peace-keeping-force, as a specific Indian military contingent deployed in Sri Lanka during 1987-1990. Deployment dates are supported by the [Indian Ministry of External Affairs memorial account](https://www.mea.gov.in/Uploads/PublicationDocs/23460_IWM_Book__11-06-2014_.pdf).", "in_scope": [ "IPKF organisational identity and boundaries relative to its contributing Indian military formations", "Deployment authority, assigned objectives and changes in host-government consent", "Command appointments, attached formations and operational control by period", "Deployment footprint, force strength and relationships with Sri Lankan authorities and armed groups", "Attribution of operations, civilian-impact claims and accountability processes", "Withdrawal, termination of the contingent and custody of its records" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The Indian Armed Forces as enduring parent institutions", "The Sri Lankan Civil War as a complete historical conflict", "The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord as an independently modelled diplomatic instrument", "Individual battles and military operations beyond their relationship to the force", "Biographies and service records of individual personnel", "Memorials, veterans' organisations and commemorative events as separate entities" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The referent must be the specific Indian contingent associated with the Sri Lanka deployment, rather than any Indian personnel performing peacekeeping duties.", "Its identity is an organised force with command and attached units; a named operation is an activity undertaken by that force.", "Its deployment context is bilateral: the accord annexure provides for an Indian contingent invited by Sri Lanka's president, distinguishing that basis from a UN mission mandate. See the [Indo-Lanka Accord](https://www.peaceinsrilanka.lk/negotiations/ila).", "Contributing formations may exist before and after their IPKF attachment; their continuing existence does not establish continued IPKF existence.", "The peacekeeping designation alone cannot establish its conduct, neutrality or authority during a particular episode." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Organisational identity", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Specific historical military contingent; registry identifier vr.tr.indian-peace-keeping-force; abbreviation IPKF", "why_it_matters": "Prevents confusion with generic Indian peacekeeping participation or a permanent military service." }, { "name": "Authority basis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Dated links to the accord, invitation, deployment orders and subsequent directives", "why_it_matters": "Separates political agreement from executable military instructions." }, { "name": "Mandate and operational posture", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Source-supported objectives and posture, each with an effective interval", "why_it_matters": "Allows an agent to compare assigned duties with documented activity without inferring either from the force's name." }, { "name": "Command and control", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Commander, superior authority, subordinate formation and administrative or operational control interval", "why_it_matters": "Identifies who could issue orders and which units those orders covered." }, { "name": "Deployed strength", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Personnel at a stated date, with included services, support elements and counting method", "why_it_matters": "Avoids treating cumulative participation or peak estimates as simultaneous strength." }, { "name": "Area of responsibility", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Dated links to assigned sectors, actual deployments, bases and access routes", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes assigned responsibility from physical presence and effective control." }, { "name": "Host-government consent", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Requested, affirmed, qualified, withdrawal requested, disputed or undetermined; dated and attributed", "why_it_matters": "Makes political changes visible without assuming that initial consent remained constant." }, { "name": "Lifecycle status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Forming, deployed, drawing down, withdrawn or administratively terminated; evidence required for transitions", "why_it_matters": "Separates departure from Sri Lanka from formal closure of the contingent." }, { "name": "Attribution confidence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Corroborated, single-source, disputed or unresolved, with underlying evidence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents contested incident accounts from becoming unqualified organisational facts." } ], "affordances": [ "Resolve whether a document refers to the IPKF, a constituent unit, an operation or another Indian deployment.", "Reconstruct the force's mandate, command chain and deployment footprint for a specified date.", "Compare an attributed action with the objectives and instructions documented for that period.", "Reconcile strength and casualty estimates using their dates, definitions and inclusion rules.", "Trace disputed incident claims to sources, responses and any documented investigative outcomes.", "Identify the appropriate records custodian for historical inquiries after withdrawal." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe the force's deployment and history from a range of reputable sources, including Indian, Sri Lankan and Tamil perspectives.", "Report findings of official inquiries and human rights reports with their sources." ], "must_not": [ "Present contested events as settled fact or take one side's account as complete.", "Make accusations against named soldiers or civilians without evidence.", "Produce content that glorifies or denies civilian deaths during the deployment.", "Reveal personal data of veterans or victims without consent." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing names, images or testimony of victims or veterans." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "The deployment involved deaths of soldiers, fighters and civilians; their memory deserves honesty.", "The conflict remains painful and political for Tamil, Sinhalese and Indian communities." ], "affected_parties": [ "Tamil civilians and survivors", "Veterans and their families", "Sri Lankan communities" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody now: a disbanded force; the armed forces and archives of India hold its records.", "master_systems": [ "National military archives" ] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "One-sided accounts can inflame communal tensions.", "Misinformation about wartime events harms victims and veterans." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "Geneva Conventions of 1949, treaties of international humanitarian law, with Switzerland as depositary." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "The force is encountered in military, diplomatic and civilian records concerning Indian intervention in Sri Lanka between 1987 and 1990.", "Its identity provides context for studying the implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and the transition from peacekeeping objectives to combat operations.", "Historical attribution requires relating particular units, locations and dates to the force's command arrangements." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "The force was an institutional organisation whose identity cannot be established visually from uniforms, equipment or appearance alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q3358912: Indian Peace Keeping Force", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3358912", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Indian Peace Keeping Force", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Peace_Keeping_Force", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-force-boundaries", "name": "Identity and force boundaries", "description": "Establishes what the IPKF designation includes and how it relates to enduring formations and named operations.", "rationale": "A temporary military contingent requires organisational boundaries without presuming separate corporate registration or permanent membership.", "layers": [ { "id": "designation-and-establishment", "name": "Designation and establishment", "description": "Resolves the official name and evidence establishing the contingent.", "findings": [ { "id": "official-force-identity", "name": "Official force identity", "description": "Record authoritative designations and establishment evidence without treating common usage as a constituting instrument.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which Indian orders or official records establish the IPKF designation and its organisational status?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "official-force-identity-q01" }, { "text": "What distinguishes an official use of IPKF from a retrospective label for India's wider intervention?", "kind": "definition", "id": "official-force-identity-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "constituents-and-neighbouring-entities", "name": "Constituents and neighbouring entities", "description": "Separates the contingent from its contributing units, support organisations and activities.", "findings": [ { "id": "attachment-versus-identity", "name": "Attachment versus identity", "description": "Represent membership through dated attachments and distinguish command inclusion from external support.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which formations were formally attached to the IPKF, and for what intervals?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attachment-versus-identity-q01" }, { "text": "Which naval, air and logistical elements supported the deployment without belonging to the same command structure?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attachment-versus-identity-q02" }, { "text": "How should references to Operation Pawan be linked to the IPKF without making the operation and force synonymous?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attachment-versus-identity-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "mandate-consent-and-change", "name": "Mandate, consent and change", "description": "Tracks the political instruments and military directives underlying the deployment and its evolving objectives.", "rationale": "The contingent's name cannot explain the scope of its authority or changes in its relationship with the host government.", "layers": [ { "id": "deployment-authorisation", "name": "Deployment authorisation", "description": "Connects bilateral provisions to the invitation and implementation decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "instrument-to-deployment-chain", "name": "Instrument-to-deployment chain", "description": "Identify the documentary chain between the accord's contingent provision and the actual deployment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which invitation and Indian deployment orders implemented the accord's provision for an Indian contingent?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "instrument-to-deployment-chain-q01" }, { "text": "What geographical, temporal and functional limits did those documents specify?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "instrument-to-deployment-chain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "objectives-and-consent-over-time", "name": "Objectives and consent over time", "description": "Distinguishes original objectives, subsequent orders and the positions of different stakeholders.", "findings": [ { "id": "dated-mandate-transitions", "name": "Dated mandate transitions", "description": "Record changes in assigned duties and consent as attributed events rather than a single permanent mandate.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which dated directives explain changes from ceasefire and disarmament duties to combat against the LTTE?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "dated-mandate-transitions-q01" }, { "text": "How did Sri Lankan government requests change, and how were those changes communicated to Indian decision-makers?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "dated-mandate-transitions-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence must an agent obtain before attributing an action to an authorised IPKF objective?", "kind": "action", "id": "dated-mandate-transitions-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "command-and-deployed-capacity", "name": "Command and deployed capacity", "description": "Reconstructs who directed the contingent and what personnel and supporting capabilities were available.", "rationale": "Responsibility and capability depend on dated command relationships and force composition.", "layers": [ { "id": "decision-rights-and-command", "name": "Decision rights and command", "description": "Maps political direction, military command and service-specific responsibilities.", "findings": [ { "id": "effective-command-chain", "name": "Effective command chain", "description": "Identify commanders and their actual decision rights without equating seniority with operational control.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who held overall and subordinate command during each deployment phase, and which appointment records support this?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "effective-command-chain-q01" }, { "text": "Which decisions belonged to political authorities, force headquarters, formation commanders or supporting service commands?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "effective-command-chain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "strength-rotation-and-support", "name": "Strength, rotation and support", "description": "Measures deployed personnel and distinguishes assigned capabilities from those actually available.", "findings": [ { "id": "time-specific-force-capacity", "name": "Time-specific force capacity", "description": "Attach dates, inclusion rules and uncertainty to strength and support estimates.", "questions": [ { "text": "What was the deployed strength at each documented date, and which services and support personnel were counted?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "time-specific-force-capacity-q01" }, { "text": "Do published totals describe peak strength, establishment strength or cumulative personnel rotations?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "time-specific-force-capacity-q02" }, { "text": "Which transport, medical and supply capabilities were available to the contingent during each phase?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "time-specific-force-capacity-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "theatre-and-local-relationships", "name": "Theatre and local relationships", "description": "Places the force within Sri Lankan geography and changing relationships with authorities, armed groups and civilians.", "rationale": "Geographical responsibility and stakeholder relationships shaped what the contingent could practically undertake.", "layers": [ { "id": "responsibility-and-presence", "name": "Responsibility and presence", "description": "Distinguishes assigned sectors, actual presence and claims of control.", "findings": [ { "id": "dated-deployment-footprint", "name": "Dated deployment footprint", "description": "Locate formations and responsibilities without inferring continuous territorial control.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which orders and deployment records locate IPKF formations in Sri Lanka's northern and eastern areas at particular dates?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "dated-deployment-footprint-q01" }, { "text": "Where did assigned responsibility differ from actual presence or effective control?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "dated-deployment-footprint-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "counterpart-and-civilian-relations", "name": "Counterpart and civilian relations", "description": "Tracks distinct relationships with state authorities, armed organisations and affected communities.", "findings": [ { "id": "actor-specific-relationships", "name": "Actor-specific relationships", "description": "Represent cooperation, negotiation and hostility by actor and date without treating communities as unified parties.", "questions": [ { "text": "How did the contingent's relationships with the LTTE, other Tamil armed organisations and Sri Lankan forces change over time?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "actor-specific-relationships-q01" }, { "text": "Which liaison arrangements connected the force to civilian authorities and affected communities?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "actor-specific-relationships-q02" }, { "text": "How should an agent distinguish host-government consent from local acceptance or an armed group's agreement?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "actor-specific-relationships-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conduct-impact-and-accountability", "name": "Conduct, impact and accountability", "description": "Connects attributed activities and consequences to evidence and documented review processes.", "rationale": "Historical assessment requires distinguishing organisational responsibility, contested allegations and established outcomes.", "layers": [ { "id": "operation-and-incident-attribution", "name": "Operation and incident attribution", "description": "Links operational and incident records to the relevant units and command intervals.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-action-attribution", "name": "Supported action attribution", "description": "Record alleged or documented participation with the evidence necessary to identify the responsible formation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which records connect a named operation or incident to specific IPKF units and commanders?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-action-attribution-q01" }, { "text": "What corroboration is required before assigning an incident to the IPKF rather than another actor operating nearby?", "kind": "action", "id": "supported-action-attribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "losses-civilian-harm-and-review", "name": "Losses, civilian harm and review", "description": "Separates quantitative loss estimates, allegations, investigations and determinations.", "findings": [ { "id": "impact-evidence-and-disposition", "name": "Impact evidence and disposition", "description": "Preserve the provenance and status of casualty counts and civilian-harm claims, including unresolved disagreements.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do reported military and civilian casualty figures differ in period, population, cause and counting method?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "impact-evidence-and-disposition-q01" }, { "text": "Which civilian-harm allegations have documented investigations, official responses or adjudicated findings?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "impact-evidence-and-disposition-q02" }, { "text": "How should an agent present conflicting accounts while preserving the distinction between allegation and determination?", "kind": "action", "id": "impact-evidence-and-disposition-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "withdrawal-closure-and-records", "name": "Withdrawal, closure and records", "description": "Establishes the end of deployment, organisational closure and continuing custody of evidence.", "rationale": "The force's departure, administrative termination and later institutional legacy are different states.", "layers": [ { "id": "drawdown-and-termination", "name": "Drawdown and termination", "description": "Reconstructs withdrawal decisions, phased departures and the end of command responsibilities.", "findings": [ { "id": "separate-closure-milestones", "name": "Separate closure milestones", "description": "Record withdrawal and administrative closure separately, allowing either date to remain unresolved.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which agreements and orders governed the withdrawal sequence and final departure?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "separate-closure-milestones-q01" }, { "text": "Did a separate order terminate the IPKF headquarters or designation after the deployed personnel returned?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "separate-closure-milestones-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence is sufficient to mark the contingent as withdrawn versus administratively terminated?", "kind": "action", "id": "separate-closure-milestones-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "records-and-continuing-responsibilities", "name": "Records and continuing responsibilities", "description": "Links the former contingent to archives and institutions handling subsequent inquiries.", "findings": [ { "id": "post-deployment-custody", "name": "Post-deployment custody", "description": "Identify custodians of operational records and distinguish continuing administrative duties from continued force existence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which institutions hold IPKF command records, unit histories, casualty records and inquiry files?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "post-deployment-custody-q01" }, { "text": "Which successor administrative authorities handle service recognition, claims or historical inquiries relating to the deployment?", "kind": "action", "id": "post-deployment-custody-q02" }, { "text": "How should memorials and veterans' bodies be linked without identifying them as organisational successors to the force?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "post-deployment-custody-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": [ "This is a recall-based description; no sources have been consulted.", "Check the accord and subsequent bilateral communications for the precise mandate, consent arrangements and changes in mission.", "Verify command structure, troop strengths, casualty figures and findings concerning alleged abuses before adding quantitative or legally specific claims." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Military force abbreviation", "value_or_pattern": "IPKF", "note": "Abbreviation of Indian Peace Keeping Force; not a legal registration identifier." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force 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": [ "Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987, concluded by the governments of India and Sri Lanka, provided the political framework for the deployment." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force 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": [ "Supporting implementation of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.", "Attempting to secure the surrender of weapons by Tamil militant groups.", "Conducting military operations against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam after the disarmament process broke down.", "Providing security in parts of northern and eastern Sri Lanka." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force 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": [ "Escalation from a ceasefire and disarmament mission into counterinsurgency warfare.", "Civilian deaths, displacement and allegations of abuses during military operations.", "Combat casualties among deployed personnel.", "Loss of local support and disagreement between the participating governments over the force's continued presence." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force 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": [ "The force operated principally in northern and eastern Sri Lanka, with conditions differing between urban fighting and dispersed rural operations." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force 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": "Indian Army", "difference": "The Indian Army is a permanent armed service; the IPKF was a temporary deployed force drawn principally from it." }, { "name": "United Nations peacekeeping forces", "difference": "The IPKF deployment arose from a bilateral arrangement between India and Sri Lanka, rather than a United Nations peacekeeping mandate." }, { "name": "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam", "difference": "The LTTE was a Sri Lankan Tamil separatist armed organisation and became the IPKF's principal military opponent." }, { "name": "Operation Pawan", "difference": "Operation Pawan names a military operation associated with the intervention; IPKF names the deployed force." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Indian Peace Keeping Force this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which constituting and termination orders establish the IPKF's precise organisational existence beyond the broadly documented 1987-1990 deployment interval?", "How did operational and administrative control differ across army formations and naval or air support elements throughout the deployment?", "Which primary records establish the timing and authority of changes in objectives, engagement instructions and host-government consent?", "What comparable, source-supported series can reconcile force-strength estimates and military and civilian casualty figures?", "Which incident investigations and operational archives are accessible, and which responsibility claims must remain unresolved because evidence is conflicting or unavailable?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 7, "layers": 13, "findings": 19, "questions": 38 } }