{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:21:06Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 22.2, "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: 01a09558-5e34-7d43-9ce3-ec8f13f8c697\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Missoula Floods\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.EVT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 044: 1001", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 75.3, "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: 01a09558-5e2c-79b1-b23e-5639b6db9de6\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Missoula Floods\nRegistry id: vr.tr.missoula-floods\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.EVT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:41:30+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "visual_identification" ] }, "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-Q371794", "registryId": "vr.tr.missoula-floods", "name": "Missoula Floods", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.EVT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q371794/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.missoula-floods", "name": "Missoula Floods", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise the Missoula Floods as a reconstructed series of glacial-lake outburst events, assess evidence for individual episodes and effects, and decide which attributions and comparisons are justified.", "definition": "The Missoula Floods were repeated late-Pleistocene glacial-lake outburst floods caused by failures of the ice dam impounding Glacial Lake Missoula, which swept across parts of the northwestern United States and profoundly reshaped the Channeled Scablands and Columbia River drainage.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the identity, episode membership, chronology, causal reconstruction, routing and evidenced effects of the Missoula Floods under vr.tr.missoula-floods in ACT / ACT.EVT; lakes, ice lobes and landscape features are related entities rather than additional event identities.", "in_scope": [ "Criteria for assigning a reconstructed flood episode to the Missoula Floods", "Dating, recurrence and correlation of individual episodes within the series", "Lake storage, ice-dam failure and release mechanisms proposed for particular episodes", "Episode-specific flood routes, temporary impoundments and hydraulic reconstructions", "Attribution of erosion, sediment deposition and transported material to the floods", "Evidence quality, competing interpretations and limits on downstream use" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Glacial Lake Missoula as a geographic entity with its own lake history", "The Cordilleran ice sheet and its lobes beyond their roles in flood generation and routing", "The Bonneville Flood and independently sourced Lake Columbia floods", "The Channeled Scablands as a landscape encompassing features with potentially different histories", "Management of the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail and individual visitor sites", "Present-day flood forecasts and engineering design standards" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Membership requires evidence connecting an episode to release from glacial Lake Missoula; occurrence within the Columbia basin alone is insufficient.", "The registered thing is a repeated event series, so one reconstructed flood cannot automatically supply the dates, route or magnitude of every episode.", "A proposed episode must be distinguished from the Bonneville Flood and independent Lake Columbia releases, which share parts of the regional flood record. [USGS review](https://www.usgs.gov/publications/missoula-and-bonneville-floods-a-review-ice-age-megafloods-columbia-river-basin)", "A scoured channel or sediment bed is evidence to evaluate, rather than an event identifier or sufficient proof of Missoula provenance.", "The source lake, its dam and the receiving landscape participate in the event reconstruction but are not interchangeable names for the flood series." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Episode membership", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "proposed | supported | disputed | excluded, with evidence and assessor", "why_it_matters": "Prevents every regional megaflood deposit from becoming a Missoula episode by default." }, { "name": "Chronological interval", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Age interval with dating method, uncertainty, calendar or timescale, and explicit BP reference epoch", "why_it_matters": "Allows compatible dates to be compared without conflating radiocarbon ages, calibrated ages and informal years-ago estimates." }, { "name": "Episode count", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Minimum or estimated number within a stated interval and geographic coverage", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes preserved local events from estimates of the complete series." }, { "name": "Interepisode interval", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Years or counted annual layers, with uncertainty and correlation assumptions", "why_it_matters": "Supports evaluation of repeated lake filling without assuming constant recurrence." }, { "name": "Source and dam roles", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Episode linked to source-lake state, impounding ice body and proposed failure process", "why_it_matters": "Makes causal attribution specific enough to test." }, { "name": "Routing configuration", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Episode linked to inferred flow paths, blocked passages, receiving basins and outlet controls", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a composite regional map from being treated as one simultaneous flood footprint." }, { "name": "Hydraulic magnitude", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Peak discharge in m³/s, released volume in km³, depth in m and duration in hours or days, each with location and reconstruction method", "why_it_matters": "Separates quantities that describe different aspects of a flood and cannot substitute for one another." }, { "name": "Evidence attribution", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "observed feature | interpreted flood evidence | correlated episode evidence, with confidence and alternatives", "why_it_matters": "Keeps observations distinct from the historical events inferred from them." } ], "affordances": [ "Evaluate whether a proposed episode belongs to the Missoula Floods and explain the evidence supporting that decision.", "Construct a chronology that preserves dating uncertainty and competing episode correlations.", "Compare hydraulic reconstructions only after aligning episode, reach and boundary conditions.", "Generate maps that distinguish individual reconstructions from the combined footprint of the series.", "Trace a landscape attribution back to observations and identify additional evidence needed to resolve it.", "Produce an interpretation that separates supported conclusions, disputed reconstructions and unanswered questions." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe the Missoula Floods and the landscape they shaped from geological sources.", "Distinguish established findings from contested questions, such as the number and timing of floods." ], "must_not": [ "Present one estimate of flood number, volume or date as settled when it is contested.", "Use the floods as evidence for unrelated claims, such as a single worldwide flood.", "Guide visitors off trails onto fragile or private land at flood sites.", "Collect rocks or features from protected sites without permission." ], "requires_human": [ "Using the floods as an analogue in hazard planning for present-day dams or glacial lakes." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Indigenous peoples of the region hold oral traditions of the landscape that deserve respect alongside geology.", "The scientist who first proposed the floods was ridiculed for decades, a lesson in honest evidence." ], "affected_parties": [ "Indigenous communities", "Landowners and park visitors", "Students" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the event; public land agencies manage many of the sites it shaped.", "master_systems": [] }, "visual_identification": [ "Giant current ripples, dry falls and scoured channels across basalt in the Channeled Scablands.", "Huge erratic boulders and rhythmic flood sediment layers far from their source." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Modern glacial lake outburst floods elsewhere remain a deadly hazard the event helps to explain." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "The Missoula Floods are studied to explain major erosional landforms and flood deposits across the northwestern United States.", "They provide evidence for reconstructing glacial lake drainage, ice-dam failures and landscape change near the end of the last ice age.", "The events also feature in geological education and interpretation of the Channeled Scablands." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No technical standard, regulation or official classification directly governs the prehistoric flood events themselves." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q371794: Missoula Floods", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q371794", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Missoula floods", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_floods", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "series-identity-and-membership", "name": "Series identity and membership", "description": "Determine what counts as a Missoula flood and how individual episodes relate to the registered series.", "rationale": "Shared routes and overlapping deposits make geographic proximity an unreliable membership rule.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-based-inclusion", "name": "Source-based inclusion", "description": "Evaluate a candidate episode's connection to glacial Lake Missoula.", "findings": [ { "id": "missoula-release-attribution", "name": "Missoula release attribution", "description": "Require a stated evidential basis for connecting an inferred flood to the source lake rather than merely to regional flooding.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence connects this candidate episode to a release from glacial Lake Missoula?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "missoula-release-attribution-q01" }, { "text": "Could the same evidence represent a Bonneville flood, an independent Lake Columbia release or an unresolved combination?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "missoula-release-attribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "series-versus-episode", "name": "Series versus episode", "description": "Keep the aggregate event series distinct from its reconstructed members.", "findings": [ { "id": "episode-individuation", "name": "Episode individuation", "description": "Treat episode labels as interpretations requiring correlation, rather than assuming each exposure records a separate flood.", "questions": [ { "text": "What separates this proposed episode from adjacent pulses, deposits or other reconstructed floods?", "kind": "definition", "id": "episode-individuation-q01" }, { "text": "Which observations show that differently named local records represent the same release?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "episode-individuation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "chronology-and-repetition", "name": "Chronology and repetition", "description": "Represent dated intervals, ordering and recurrence without imposing one precise date on the series.", "rationale": "The number and timing of reconstructed releases depend on preservation, dating and correlation.", "layers": [ { "id": "dated-event-bounds", "name": "Dated event bounds", "description": "Connect chronological claims to dated material and explicit timescales.", "findings": [ { "id": "age-and-bracketing", "name": "Age and bracketing", "description": "Record whether a date measures flood deposition or only constrains it from above or below.", "questions": [ { "text": "What was dated, by which method, and how does that material constrain the flood's age?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "age-and-bracketing-q01" }, { "text": "Which timescale, calibration and uncertainty accompany the proposed beginning and end of the series?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "age-and-bracketing-q02" }, { "text": "Which publication or synthesis establishes the adopted dating convention?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "age-and-bracketing-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "counts-and-recurrence", "name": "Counts and recurrence", "description": "Assess how stratigraphic records support repeated releases and intervals between them.", "findings": [ { "id": "preserved-versus-total-count", "name": "Preserved versus total count", "description": "Separate local counts from series-wide estimates; annual-layer interpretations can inform recurrence but require explicit assumptions. [USGS study](https://www.usgs.gov/publications/case-periodic-colossal-jokulhlaups-pleistocene-glacial-lake-missoula)", "questions": [ { "text": "Is this count a preserved minimum, a correlated regional count or an extrapolated total?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "preserved-versus-total-count-q01" }, { "text": "How were annual layers identified, and could erosion or nondeposition alter the inferred interepisode interval?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "preserved-versus-total-count-q02" }, { "text": "Which episode correlations must hold before these local counts can be combined?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "preserved-versus-total-count-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "lake-and-ice-dam-dynamics", "name": "Lake and ice-dam dynamics", "description": "Represent the physical antecedents and proposed release mechanisms of particular floods.", "rationale": "A repeated outburst interpretation needs lake and dam states that can account for both release and renewed storage.", "layers": [ { "id": "preflood-storage", "name": "Preflood storage", "description": "Relate a reconstructed episode to lake level, stored water and impounding ice geometry.", "findings": [ { "id": "available-release-water", "name": "Available release water", "description": "Distinguish estimated lake capacity from water actually released during a particular episode.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which shoreline, topographic or ice-margin evidence constrains the lake level before this release?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "available-release-water-q01" }, { "text": "What released volume is compatible with those constraints, and how much drainage is assumed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "available-release-water-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "failure-and-reset", "name": "Failure and reset", "description": "Assess how water escaped and how impoundment could recur.", "findings": [ { "id": "release-mechanism-hypotheses", "name": "Release mechanism hypotheses", "description": "Retain competing explanations of dam failure and reimpoundment with their authors and testable implications.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which investigator proposes each release mechanism, and what evidence distinguishes the alternatives?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "release-mechanism-hypotheses-q01" }, { "text": "What lake, ice and drainage conditions must hold for the proposed mechanism?", "kind": "definition", "id": "release-mechanism-hypotheses-q02" }, { "text": "Is renewed impoundment supported for this interval, or inferred only from the existence of a later flood?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "release-mechanism-hypotheses-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "routing-and-hydraulics", "name": "Routing and hydraulics", "description": "Reconstruct episode-specific pathways, inundation and hydraulic magnitude.", "rationale": "Changing ice barriers and downstream constrictions prevent one route or peak estimate from representing every flood.", "layers": [ { "id": "pathways-and-backwater", "name": "Pathways and backwater", "description": "Track channels, receiving basins and constrictions involved in each reconstruction.", "findings": [ { "id": "episode-route-configuration", "name": "Episode route configuration", "description": "Evaluate evidence for passage through the scabland and Columbia corridors, including proposed ponding and backflooding near Wallula Gap.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which passages were available under the ice-margin configuration assigned to this episode?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "episode-route-configuration-q01" }, { "text": "What observations distinguish downstream flow from ponding or backflooding at the mapped location?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "episode-route-configuration-q02" }, { "text": "Does the map depict one reconstructed flood or the union of routes used at different times?", "kind": "definition", "id": "episode-route-configuration-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "hydraulic-reconstruction", "name": "Hydraulic reconstruction", "description": "Connect numerical estimates to field constraints and model assumptions.", "findings": [ { "id": "comparable-magnitude-estimates", "name": "Comparable magnitude estimates", "description": "Attach discharge and inundation estimates to a reach and episode; published work combines field evidence, dating and hydraulic modelling. [USGS hydraulic study](https://www.usgs.gov/publications/number-and-size-last-glacial-missoula-floods-columbia-river-valley-between-pasco-basin)", "questions": [ { "text": "At what reach and for which episode are peak discharge, depth or duration estimated?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparable-magnitude-estimates-q01" }, { "text": "How sensitive is the result to reconstructed topography, roughness, ice blockage and the assumed release hydrograph?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparable-magnitude-estimates-q02" }, { "text": "Are the assumptions sufficiently aligned to compare or combine these two estimates?", "kind": "action", "id": "comparable-magnitude-estimates-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "landscape-evidence-and-interpretation", "name": "Landscape evidence and interpretation", "description": "Assess physical traces, alternative explanations and the conclusions an agent may communicate.", "rationale": "Flood effects survive as incomplete and sometimes repeatedly modified evidence, so interpretation must remain traceable.", "layers": [ { "id": "erosion-and-deposition", "name": "Erosion and deposition", "description": "Evaluate landforms and deposits as evidence for flood processes and episode correlations.", "findings": [ { "id": "trace-to-event-attribution", "name": "Trace-to-event attribution", "description": "Record observations of scoured channels, bars, transported boulders and slackwater beds separately from their proposed flood origin.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which measured properties support Missoula flood erosion or deposition at this site?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "trace-to-event-attribution-q01" }, { "text": "Could later floods, reworking or other processes account for part of the feature?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "trace-to-event-attribution-q02" }, { "text": "What independent marker supports assigning this feature to a particular episode?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "trace-to-event-attribution-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretive-confidence", "name": "Interpretive confidence", "description": "Preserve disagreements and control how reconstructions are reused.", "findings": [ { "id": "competing-flood-interpretations", "name": "Competing flood interpretations", "description": "Separate disagreements about episode number and bed interpretation from disagreements about source, route or magnitude. A historical study explicitly evaluated successive beds as evidence for separate floods. [USGS stratigraphic study](https://www.usgs.gov/publications/tens-successive-colossal-missoula-floods-north-and-east-margins-channeled-scabland)", "questions": [ { "text": "Which specific claim is disputed, by whom, and on what observational grounds?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "competing-flood-interpretations-q01" }, { "text": "What additional observation would distinguish the competing interpretations?", "kind": "action", "id": "competing-flood-interpretations-q02" }, { "text": "Which conclusions can an agent present as supported, and which require an explicit uncertainty statement?", "kind": "action", "id": "competing-flood-interpretations-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": [ "Exact dates, event counts, recurrence intervals, and discharge estimates require checking against a specified reconstruction and dating convention.", "Not every regional flood deposit or erosional feature can automatically be attributed to Glacial Lake Missoula; other flood sources contributed.", "J Harlen Bretz advanced the catastrophic-flood interpretation, and Joseph Pardee supplied key evidence for the lake source; their original proposals should be distinguished from later reconstructions of repeated flooding." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Missoula Floods 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": [ "A major case study in catastrophic erosion, sediment transport, and landscape formation.", "Reconstructing ice-sheet behaviour and glacial-lake drainage during the last deglaciation.", "Interpreting giant current ripples, flood bars, erratic boulders, and rhythmically bedded flood deposits.", "Geological education and heritage interpretation along the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Missoula Floods 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": [ "Failure of a glacier ice dam released enormous volumes of stored lake water.", "Flood flows caused deep erosion, bedrock scouring, and transport of large sediment loads.", "Temporary hydraulic constrictions produced extensive upstream ponding and inundation.", "Repeated ice-dam formation and failure allowed catastrophic flooding to recur." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Missoula Floods 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": [ "Western Montana preserves evidence of the source lake, including former shorelines and lake sediments.", "Eastern Washington preserves extensive erosional channels, coulees, cataracts, and flood deposits in the Channeled Scablands.", "The Columbia River Gorge and downstream basins preserve evidence of constricted flow, backwater flooding, and sediment deposition." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Missoula Floods 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": "Glacial Lake Missoula", "difference": "The lake was the impounded water reservoir; the Missoula Floods were its repeated catastrophic drainage events." }, { "name": "Channeled Scablands", "difference": "The Scablands are a landscape strongly shaped by flooding; the Missoula Floods are events that helped create that landscape." }, { "name": "Bonneville Flood", "difference": "The Bonneville Flood drained Lake Bonneville through a breached outlet into the Snake River system, rather than draining ice-dammed Glacial Lake Missoula." }, { "name": "Ice Age floods of the Pacific Northwest", "difference": "This broader grouping includes floods from other sources as well as the Missoula Floods." }, { "name": "Glacial-lake outburst flood", "difference": "This is the general event class; the Missoula Floods are a particular prehistoric sequence." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Missoula Floods this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which temporal convention should delimit this registry entry: the last-glacial series alone, or also older releases attributed to earlier impoundments of Lake Missoula?", "What minimum episode count and chronology remain supported after reconciling local records, preservation gaps and alternative correlations?", "Which release mechanisms are supported for particular episodes, and can their relative importance be distinguished from the surviving evidence?", "Which downstream deposits can be assigned specifically to Missoula releases rather than independent Lake Columbia floods or combined flows?", "Which route and magnitude reconstructions remain robust when changing ice geometry, paleotopography and hydraulic assumptions are considered together?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 15, "questions": 32 } }