{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:38:25Z", "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: 01a094fa-7a49-74c1-858b-178682bb9c5d\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: false precision\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.MED\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 67.3, "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: 01a094fa-7a3f-73e3-b5f1-5eb9a66dc67c\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: false precision\nRegistry id: vr.tr.false-precision\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.MED\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:41:53+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-Q3467464", "registryId": "vr.tr.false-precision", "name": "false precision", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.MED" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q3467464/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.false-precision", "name": "false precision", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognize when a communicated numerical claim implies finer resolution or certainty than its evidence supports and choose an appropriate correction.", "definition": "False precision is the presentation of a numerical result with a degree of exactness that is not justified by the quality of the underlying data, assumptions, or method.", "scope_statement": "This model owns false precision as a mismatch between the precision conveyed by a numerical representation and the precision warranted by its inputs, methods, uncertainty and intended interpretation.", "in_scope": [ "Numerical claims whose digits, increments, intervals or rankings imply unsupported distinctions", "The relationship between displayed precision and evidential support", "Precision introduced or preserved through calculations, conversions and aggregation", "Contextual judgments about whether apparent precision misleads an audience", "Corrections that align numerical presentation with supported distinctions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "General factual falsity or numerical inaccuracy without excessive implied precision", "Measurement instrument design and calibration procedures", "Complete statistical models and uncertainty estimation methods", "Deliberate deception as a psychological or legal classification", "Non-numerical ambiguity, verbosity and rhetorical specificity" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A claim can be close to the true value yet exhibit false precision when its reported detail is unsupported; numerical error alone does not establish false precision.", "Additional digits are suspect only when they imply unsupported distinctions; exact counts, defined constants and explicitly labeled intermediate values may legitimately contain many digits.", "Repeatable measurements can still have systematic error; repeatability alone does not justify the certainty conveyed by a published number.", "Rounding can remove excessive displayed detail without correcting biased inputs, an invalid method or an uncertainty interval that is too narrow.", "A deterministic calculation can produce many digits without adding information about the uncertain real-world quantities represented by its inputs." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Claim under assessment", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Numerical expression linked to its referent, unit, population, time and publication context", "why_it_matters": "Precision cannot be assessed without identifying what the number purports to describe." }, { "name": "Numerical basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Exact count; defined value; measurement; statistical estimate; forecast; calculation; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Different numerical bases require different justifications for precision." }, { "name": "Displayed resolution", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Smallest represented increment in the claim's unit, accompanied by significant-digit or formatting information where applicable", "why_it_matters": "Records the distinctions the representation appears able to make." }, { "name": "Uncertainty basis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Linked uncertainty estimate, interval, bound, sensitivity analysis or explicit statement that support is unavailable", "why_it_matters": "Provides the evidence against which apparent precision can be judged." }, { "name": "Precision-generating mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Excess digits; exact conversion of uncertain input; arithmetic output; unsupported interval width; fragile ranking; omitted qualification; mixed", "why_it_matters": "Identifies where a correction must intervene." }, { "name": "Assessment state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; suspected; supported finding; justified precision; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an agent from treating missing uncertainty information as proof of false precision." }, { "name": "Interpretive consequence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Cosmetic detail; implied certainty; implied difference; threshold crossing; ranking change; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Connects the mismatch to the audience's likely judgment or action." }, { "name": "Correction state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unchanged; rounding proposed; qualification proposed; interval revision proposed; corrected; retained with justification", "why_it_matters": "Tracks how the claim has been handled without erasing the original representation." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare a number's presentation with documented support for its precision", "Trace unsupported detail to source reporting, computation or publication formatting", "Request the uncertainty information needed to resolve a suspected mismatch", "Propose rounding, intervals or qualifications while preserving the original claim", "Test whether supported alternative values change a ranking or threshold decision", "Explain why apparently excessive digits are justified in a particular context" ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Point out false precision in figures and suggest rounding that matches the data.", "Report results with their uncertainty and the number of significant figures the method supports." ], "must_not": [ "Present its own estimates with more decimal places or certainty than the data justifies.", "Strip uncertainty from figures to make a claim look stronger.", "Accuse a named author of deliberate deception when the error may be honest." ], "requires_human": [ "Correcting published figures in a document someone else owns." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Spurious precision can mislead decisions on health, money and safety.", "It lends false authority to weak data and can be used to persuade dishonestly." ], "affected_parties": [ "Readers and decision makers", "People affected by decisions based on the figures" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; authors answer for the figures they publish.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Decisions are made with more confidence than the evidence supports.", "Small changes in inputs reveal that the stated figure was never reliable." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM), Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "False precision is encountered in measurements, forecasts, financial estimates and statistical reports when displayed detail exceeds the evidence available.", "The concept is used when reviewing numerical claims to decide whether rounding, uncertainty statements or clearer assumptions are needed." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Visual identification is not applicable because unjustified precision is a relationship between a numerical claim and its evidence, rather than a perceptible property of the number alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q3467464: false precision", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3467464", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: False precision", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "numerical-claim-and-implied-detail", "name": "Numerical claim and implied detail", "description": "Identify the numerical expression and the distinctions its presentation appears to support.", "rationale": "False precision concerns a claim in context, rather than a digit count considered in isolation.", "layers": [ { "id": "quantity-and-reference", "name": "Quantity and reference", "description": "Establish what is being quantified and whether the value is exact or evidentially estimated.", "findings": [ { "id": "numerical-basis-controls-the-test", "name": "Numerical basis controls the test", "description": "Assessment must distinguish exact or defined quantities from measurements, estimates and forecasts before questioning their precision.", "questions": [ { "text": "What quantity, population, time and unit does this numerical claim refer to?", "kind": "definition", "id": "numerical-basis-controls-the-test-q01" }, { "text": "Is the value exact by counting or definition, or is it inferred from uncertain observations or assumptions?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "numerical-basis-controls-the-test-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "presentation-signals", "name": "Presentation signals", "description": "Inspect digits, increments and accompanying language as signals of precision.", "findings": [ { "id": "displayed-detail-can-imply-distinguishability", "name": "Displayed detail can imply distinguishability", "description": "Decimal places, significant digits and precise endpoints can suggest that nearby values are meaningfully distinguishable, depending on accompanying qualifications.", "questions": [ { "text": "What is the smallest increment shown, and how is it affected by the unit or notation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "displayed-detail-can-imply-distinguishability-q01" }, { "text": "Does the surrounding text present the number as approximate, exact, provisional or merely an intermediate computational value?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "displayed-detail-can-imply-distinguishability-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "warrant-for-precision", "name": "Warrant for precision", "description": "Connect reported detail to the evidence and uncertainty that might justify it.", "rationale": "Excessive precision is an evidential mismatch; visual inspection of a number cannot establish it alone.", "layers": [ { "id": "input-resolution-and-quality", "name": "Input resolution and quality", "description": "Record the precision and limitations of the observations or records underlying the claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "input-detail-needs-a-source", "name": "Input detail needs a source", "description": "The assessment should identify how input values were observed, recorded and rounded, including limitations that displayed input digits do not reveal.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which source records establish the input values, their resolution and any prior rounding?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "input-detail-needs-a-source-q01" }, { "text": "Which limitations, such as sampling, coverage, calibration or recording error, affect the precision those inputs can support?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "input-detail-needs-a-source-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "uncertainty-support", "name": "Uncertainty support", "description": "Assess the basis and scope of uncertainty information associated with the claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "support-must-match-the-claim", "name": "Support must match the claim", "description": "Any uncertainty estimate used to justify reported precision must apply to the claimed quantity and identify which uncertainty sources it includes.", "questions": [ { "text": "What uncertainty estimate, bound or reporting rule supports the chosen precision, and how was it obtained?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "support-must-match-the-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Does that support cover the claimed quantity and relevant uncertainty sources, or only a narrower component?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "support-must-match-the-claim-q02" }, { "text": "If support is unavailable, what evidence would distinguish unjustified precision from adequately supported but undocumented precision?", "kind": "action", "id": "support-must-match-the-claim-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "precision-through-transformation", "name": "Precision through transformation", "description": "Trace how calculations and formatting create or preserve numerical detail.", "rationale": "False precision can be introduced after data collection even when the original source was appropriately qualified.", "layers": [ { "id": "arithmetic-and-unit-conversion", "name": "Arithmetic and unit conversion", "description": "Examine the distinction between computational output and justified reporting precision.", "findings": [ { "id": "computed-digits-do-not-create-evidence", "name": "Computed digits do not create evidence", "description": "Arithmetic or an exact conversion factor can generate additional digits while leaving the underlying real-world uncertainty unresolved.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which calculations or unit conversions introduced digits absent from the original evidence?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "computed-digits-do-not-create-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "How were input uncertainty, dependencies and prior rounding accounted for before selecting output precision?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "computed-digits-do-not-create-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "aggregation-and-model-output", "name": "Aggregation and model output", "description": "Assess precision in averages, ratios, fitted values and forecasts.", "findings": [ { "id": "aggregate-precision-requires-method-specific-support", "name": "Aggregate precision requires method-specific support", "description": "Aggregation may support finer estimates under appropriate conditions, but sample size or software output alone does not establish how much precision is warranted.", "questions": [ { "text": "What assumptions about independence, bias, model fit or population coverage justify the reported aggregate precision?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "aggregate-precision-requires-method-specific-support-q01" }, { "text": "How much do plausible input revisions or model choices change the reported final digits?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "aggregate-precision-requires-method-specific-support-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-decision-effects", "name": "Interpretation and decision effects", "description": "Evaluate how apparent precision shapes comparisons, confidence and decisions.", "rationale": "The practical significance of false precision depends on what distinctions a reader or downstream system draws from it.", "layers": [ { "id": "comparisons-and-rankings", "name": "Comparisons and rankings", "description": "Examine whether displayed differences warrant an asserted ordering.", "findings": [ { "id": "visible-differences-may-not-support-an-order", "name": "Visible differences may not support an order", "description": "A numerical ranking may imply more stable distinctions than the uncertainty of the compared values permits.", "questions": [ { "text": "Are comparisons based on differences smaller than the evidence can reliably distinguish?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "visible-differences-may-not-support-an-order-q01" }, { "text": "Does the comparison account for shared uncertainty or dependence between the values?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "visible-differences-may-not-support-an-order-q02" }, { "text": "Should the presentation use ties, ranges or an explicit statement that the ordering is unresolved?", "kind": "action", "id": "visible-differences-may-not-support-an-order-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "thresholds-and-audience", "name": "Thresholds and audience", "description": "Connect apparent precision to a specific audience and decision rule.", "findings": [ { "id": "precision-can-overstate-decision-certainty", "name": "Precision can overstate decision certainty", "description": "A finely stated value near a threshold may suggest a settled classification even when supported alternatives fall on both sides.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which audience or downstream system uses this number, and what decision threshold or rule does it apply?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "precision-can-overstate-decision-certainty-q01" }, { "text": "Do values consistent with the available evidence produce different classifications or actions?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "precision-can-overstate-decision-certainty-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-and-correction", "name": "Assessment and correction", "description": "Record a defensible judgment and select a correction suited to the actual mismatch.", "rationale": "An agent needs to resolve false precision without replacing it with arbitrary rounding or concealing unresolved uncertainty.", "layers": [ { "id": "assessment-with-alternatives", "name": "Assessment with alternatives", "description": "Separate established mismatch from suspicion and legitimate precision.", "findings": [ { "id": "a-finding-requires-an-explicit-mismatch", "name": "A finding requires an explicit mismatch", "description": "A supported assessment identifies what precision was conveyed, what support was available and why the two conflict; missing documentation can leave the assessment unresolved.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific evidential limitation contradicts the precision conveyed by this claim?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "a-finding-requires-an-explicit-mismatch-q01" }, { "text": "Could exactness, a valid reporting convention, accompanying uncertainty or a stated computational purpose justify the displayed detail?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "a-finding-requires-an-explicit-mismatch-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "repair-and-verification", "name": "Repair and verification", "description": "Choose and check a representation that preserves useful information while removing unsupported implications.", "findings": [ { "id": "repair-must-address-the-mechanism", "name": "Repair must address the mechanism", "description": "Possible repairs include supported rounding, uncertainty disclosure, revised intervals or qualified comparisons; removing digits alone cannot resolve every form of false precision.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which correction addresses the identified mismatch, and what evidence supports the replacement representation?", "kind": "action", "id": "repair-must-address-the-mechanism-q01" }, { "text": "After correction, do the number, interval, wording and downstream comparisons convey mutually consistent precision?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "repair-must-address-the-mechanism-q02" }, { "text": "How will the original claim, correction rationale and remaining uncertainty be retained for review?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "repair-must-address-the-mechanism-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 was supplied; this description assumes the numerical reporting concept rather than a particular work or medium.", "The standards reference is recalled guidance relevant to measurement reporting, not a claim that false precision has a universal regulatory definition.", "There is no universal acceptable number of decimal places: justification depends on uncertainty, purpose, and whether the quantity is measured, estimated, counted, or defined exactly." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of false precision 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": [ "The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), maintained by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM), provides guidance on expressing measurement uncertainty and reporting numerical results." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of false precision 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 scientific results for unjustified significant figures.", "Checking whether news reports communicate the uncertainty of statistics.", "Assessing whether forecasts and model outputs imply more certainty than their assumptions support.", "Rounding converted quantities to preserve the precision warranted by the original measurements." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of false precision 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": [ "Reporting calculator or software output digits as though every digit were meaningful.", "Giving a converted value more apparent precision than the original measurement supports.", "Presenting estimates without uncertainty intervals or qualifications.", "Using fine numerical rankings when differences are smaller than the relevant uncertainty.", "Encouraging unwarranted confidence in decisions based on uncertain quantities." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of false precision 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": "Precision", "difference": "Measurement precision concerns agreement among repeated measurements; false precision concerns whether the exactness communicated is justified." }, { "name": "Accuracy", "difference": "Accuracy concerns agreement with a true or reference value; a result can display unjustified digits regardless of how close it happens to be to that value." }, { "name": "Significant figures", "difference": "Significant figures are a numerical reporting convention; false precision arises when the reported detail exceeds what the evidence warrants." }, { "name": "Measurement uncertainty", "difference": "Measurement uncertainty characterizes the dispersion of values attributable to a measured quantity; false precision can result from failing to represent that uncertainty appropriately." }, { "name": "Spurious accuracy", "difference": "This term often overlaps with false precision, although accuracy and precision have distinct technical meanings; usage must be checked in context." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of false precision this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Should this registry entry include overstated certainty in interval widths and rankings, or should those be relations to neighbouring models with false precision restricted to numerical reporting detail?", "Which domain-specific reporting conventions provide defensible criteria for matching displayed precision to uncertainty?", "What evidence is sufficient to move an assessment from suspected to supported when the original calculation or uncertainty budget is unavailable?", "How should machine-readable values retaining extra digits for computation be assessed when user interfaces or downstream publications expose those digits without qualification?", "Which contextual or audience evidence is needed to establish that a numerical format conveys unsupported certainty rather than harmless computational detail?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 28 } }