{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:03:02Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 24.3, "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: 01a094da-0cc4-76c1-a30f-bed007f28d2b\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: deference\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 regis", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 70.0, "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: 01a094da-0cb3-7082-8aa1-954f7c1dc5c9\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: deference\nRegistry id: vr.tr.deference\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCont" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:54:48+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-09T07:30:02+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q396568", "registryId": "vr.tr.deference", "name": "deference", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q396568/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.deference", "name": "deference", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise deference, distinguish its forms, assess its grounds and consequences, and decide whether to accept, question, limit or withdraw it.", "definition": "Deference is the act or disposition of giving another person's or institution's judgment, wishes, or standing precedence in one's own conduct or judgment, whether through respect, recognized authority, perceived expertise, or social convention.", "scope_statement": "This model owns situated acts and patterns in which an actor gives another person, group, institution or attributed authority special standing in judgment, decision or interaction, while preserving uncertainty about whether respect, yielding or submission is required for an instance to count.", "in_scope": [ "Who defers to whom, over which issue, and within what limits", "Epistemic, decisional and interactional forms of deference and their overlap", "Claimed grounds such as expertise, office, status, tradition or relationship", "Expressions of deference, including reliance, yielding and ceremonial recognition", "Voluntariness, disagreement, contestability and withdrawal", "Consequences for judgment, participation, responsibility and authority" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Expertise itself and the full assessment of a specialist's competence", "The creation and legitimacy of offices, hierarchies or institutions", "Obedience, coercion and compliance except where their relationship to deference must be assessed", "Trust, admiration, politeness and respect without evidence of preferential standing", "Delegation contracts and transfer of decision rights as independent arrangements", "Detailed jurisdiction-specific doctrines of judicial or administrative deference" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Ask whether the recipient's identity, role or standing changes the weight given to their contribution; agreement based only on independently assessed reasons is insufficient evidence.", "Ask whether an actor yields judgment, choice or interactional precedence; praise or admiration alone does not establish deference.", "Check whether conduct follows an explicit command or threatened sanction; compliance may coexist with deference but cannot establish it by itself.", "Check whether authority is merely recognised or decision rights are actually transferred; deference can occur without delegation.", "Treat courteous conduct as ambiguous unless the context shows recognition of special standing; ordinary reciprocal politeness need not be deference." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Deferring actor and recipient", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor or collective → person, group, institution or attributed authority", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the direction of deference and prevents assuming that a relationship is reciprocal." }, { "name": "Issue and jurisdiction", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Subject matter, decision, interaction and applicable setting", "why_it_matters": "Deference on one issue does not establish general superiority or authority." }, { "name": "Form of deference", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Epistemic; decisional; interactional or ceremonial; mixed; disputed", "why_it_matters": "Separates accepting a judgment, yielding a choice and displaying recognition." }, { "name": "Claimed basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Expertise; formal office; social status; tradition; relationship; other stated basis; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Makes the grounds available for examination without treating the claim as justified." }, { "name": "Extent of yielding", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Additional weight; rebuttable presumption; acceptance without independent assessment; final say; symbolic recognition only; unclear", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes limited influence from surrender of judgment or control." }, { "name": "Private endorsement", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Endorsed; partly endorsed; privately disputed; withheld; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Visible deference need not imply agreement or belief." }, { "name": "Freedom to dissent", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Apparently unconstrained; socially costly; materially constrained; explicitly compelled; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Supports assessment of whether the conduct reflects choice, pressure or coercion." }, { "name": "Contestability", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Challenge and withdrawal available; challenge only; withdrawal only; neither available; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Shows how mistaken or overextended deference can be corrected." }, { "name": "Observed yielding frequency", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Qualifying yielding episodes / observed relevant opportunities, with observation period and coding rule", "why_it_matters": "Supports comparison of patterns while keeping behavior separate from inferred motivation." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify a candidate episode while retaining competing interpretations and missing evidence.", "Map who receives preferential standing and the issues over which it applies.", "Check whether the stated basis supports the particular judgment or decision being deferred to.", "Compare expressed recognition, private endorsement and actual decision influence.", "Identify opportunities to request reasons, introduce dissent or obtain independent review.", "Set conditions for continuing, narrowing or withdrawing deference while preserving accountability." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Defer to a user's decisions about their own affairs within the limits of law and safety.", "Explain when deference to an expert or institution is warranted and when it is not." ], "must_not": [ "Defer to an instruction that would cause serious harm because it came from someone in authority.", "Exploit a person's habit of deference to steer them into agreements or purchases.", "Feign deference while acting against the user's stated wishes.", "Expect deference from people on the basis of status, age or gender." ], "requires_human": [ "Overriding a person's expressed wishes for their own safety." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Deference to authority can enable abuse when it replaces judgment.", "Respecting people's choices is part of their dignity and autonomy." ], "affected_parties": [ "People in subordinate roles", "Older people and patients", "Employees" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; it is a disposition of the person who defers.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Excessive deference to authority has allowed errors and abuse to go unchallenged.", "Automated systems that defer blindly can be misused by whoever controls them." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Deference occurs in institutions and social hierarchies when people give precedence to a superior's judgment or direction because they recognize that person's authority.", "It supports coordination and accepted decision making while requiring attention to the scope and legitimacy of the authority involved." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No generally applicable standard, law or official classification governs deference itself across social and institutional settings.", "recognition": "Deference is a relational disposition or act whose meaning cannot be established from visible gestures alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q396568: deference", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q396568", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Deference", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deference", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-instance-boundaries", "name": "Meaning and instance boundaries", "description": "Establishes what counts as deference under the interpretation being used.", "rationale": "A model must distinguish recognition of standing from actual yielding without declaring one definition universally settled.", "layers": [ { "id": "definitions-in-use", "name": "Definitions in use", "description": "Records competing meanings and who adopts them.", "findings": [ { "id": "recognition-versus-yielding", "name": "Recognition versus yielding", "description": "Record whether the relevant account requires yielding or also includes symbolic recognition of another's standing.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this account require a change in judgment or choice, or can ceremonial recognition alone count?", "kind": "definition", "id": "recognition-versus-yielding-q01" }, { "text": "Which participant, community or documented account supplies this interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "recognition-versus-yielding-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "neighbouring-conduct", "name": "Neighbouring conduct", "description": "Tests candidate instances against agreement, politeness, obedience and delegation.", "findings": [ { "id": "standing-dependent-response", "name": "Standing-dependent response", "description": "Record evidence that the recipient's standing matters, alongside alternative explanations for the same behavior.", "questions": [ { "text": "Would the actor respond similarly to the same reasons or request from someone without the recipient's standing?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "standing-dependent-response-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this episode from independent agreement, ordinary courtesy, compelled compliance or delegated authority?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "standing-dependent-response-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "recipient-standing-and-scope", "name": "Recipient standing and scope", "description": "Locates the relationship and the grounds on which special standing is granted.", "rationale": "An actor may reasonably defer to someone on one matter while rejecting their authority on another.", "layers": [ { "id": "direction-and-jurisdiction", "name": "Direction and jurisdiction", "description": "Identifies the parties and the precise domain of yielding.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-deference-relation", "name": "Bounded deference relation", "description": "Record the deferring actor, recipient, issue and whether standing attaches to a person, role or institution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who defers to whom, and over which judgment, decision or interactional privilege?", "kind": "definition", "id": "bounded-deference-relation-q01" }, { "text": "Would the deference continue if the recipient changed roles or spoke outside the relevant subject area?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-deference-relation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "grounds-and-warrants", "name": "Grounds and warrants", "description": "Separates the basis claimed for deference from evidence supporting that basis.", "findings": [ { "id": "claimed-standing", "name": "Claimed standing", "description": "Record why standing is granted and how its relevance to this issue has been assessed.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is standing attributed to expertise, office, status, tradition, relationship or another stated ground?", "kind": "definition", "id": "claimed-standing-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports the claimed ground, and who supplied or verified that evidence?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claimed-standing-q02" }, { "text": "What additional assessment is needed before treating this standing as a reason to yield on the present issue?", "kind": "action", "id": "claimed-standing-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "forms-and-observable-expression", "name": "Forms and observable expression", "description": "Connects the interpretation of deference to observable conduct without equating conduct with belief.", "rationale": "Accepting another's knowledge, allowing another to decide and displaying respect can produce different evidence and consequences.", "layers": [ { "id": "judgment-and-choice", "name": "Judgment and choice", "description": "Tracks changes in evidential weight and decision control.", "findings": [ { "id": "epistemic-and-decisional-yielding", "name": "Epistemic and decisional yielding", "description": "Record whether an actor changes what they accept as true, who determines the action, or both.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the actor accept the recipient's judgment, give it extra weight, or permit the recipient to choose despite disagreement?", "kind": "definition", "id": "epistemic-and-decisional-yielding-q01" }, { "text": "What observable difference did the recipient's standing make to the actor's assessment or final choice?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "epistemic-and-decisional-yielding-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interaction-and-endorsed-meaning", "name": "Interaction and endorsed meaning", "description": "Interprets gestures, speech and turn-taking within their setting.", "findings": [ { "id": "display-and-private-position", "name": "Display and private position", "description": "Record candidate displays such as titles, precedence or restrained disagreement, with their contextual meaning and any evidence of endorsement.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which speech forms, gestures or interactional permissions signal special standing in this setting, and according to whom?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "display-and-private-position-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence separates sincere recognition, strategic display, routine convention and concealed disagreement?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "display-and-private-position-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "pressure-dissent-and-withdrawal", "name": "Pressure, dissent and withdrawal", "description": "Assesses the conditions under which deference is expressed and can be challenged.", "rationale": "An appearance of voluntary yielding can conceal dependence or penalties for disagreement.", "layers": [ { "id": "conditions-of-yielding", "name": "Conditions of yielding", "description": "Examines alternatives and the costs of refusing deference.", "findings": [ { "id": "choice-under-pressure", "name": "Choice under pressure", "description": "Record actual and anticipated consequences of dissent without inferring voluntariness from outward compliance.", "questions": [ { "text": "What social, professional or material consequences does the actor expect if they refuse to defer?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "choice-under-pressure-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports describing this episode as chosen deference, pressured deference or coercive compliance?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "choice-under-pressure-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "challenge-and-revision", "name": "Challenge and revision", "description": "Identifies practical mechanisms for questioning or ending the relation.", "findings": [ { "id": "rebuttal-and-exit", "name": "Rebuttal and exit", "description": "Record whether the actor can request reasons, challenge scope, seek another view or withdraw deference.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which challenge, review or withdrawal routes are practically available to this actor?", "kind": "action", "id": "rebuttal-and-exit-q01" }, { "text": "What error, conflict of interest or overreach would trigger reconsideration of the recipient's standing?", "kind": "action", "id": "rebuttal-and-exit-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequences-and-accountability", "name": "Consequences and accountability", "description": "Evaluates what deference changes and who remains answerable.", "rationale": "Deference may help coordinate action or use expertise, but those benefits must be assessed alongside suppressed input and unclear responsibility.", "layers": [ { "id": "effects-on-judgment-and-participation", "name": "Effects on judgment and participation", "description": "Examines decision quality and whose contributions reach consideration.", "findings": [ { "id": "benefits-and-excluded-input", "name": "Benefits and excluded input", "description": "Record observed effects and plausible alternatives without assuming that deference caused every outcome.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence indicates that deference improved or impaired accuracy, coordination or decision speed in this episode?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "benefits-and-excluded-input-q01" }, { "text": "Whose relevant evidence or preferences received less consideration because of the recipient's standing?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "benefits-and-excluded-input-q02" }, { "text": "Would independent review or structured dissent address an identified weakness?", "kind": "action", "id": "benefits-and-excluded-input-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "responsibility-and-continuation", "name": "Responsibility and continuation", "description": "Connects retained duties to decisions about future deference.", "findings": [ { "id": "retained-accountability", "name": "Retained accountability", "description": "Record who advised, who decided and who must explain or correct the result; yielding alone does not establish a transfer of responsibility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which responsibilities remain with the deferring actor, and which are assigned to the recipient by the applicable arrangement?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "retained-accountability-q01" }, { "text": "Given the observed outcome and remaining uncertainty, should deference continue, narrow, become conditional or cease?", "kind": "action", "id": "retained-accountability-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "No sense is recorded: interpersonal conduct, reliance on expertise, and judicial review are related uses that should not be assumed to share one operational definition.", "Goffman's sociological treatment emphasizes ceremonial expressions of regard; epistemological treatments emphasize reliance on another's judgment.", "Advice-taking weight measures one possible manifestation of deference, not the whole concept; its interpretation depends on the experimental design, and it is undefined when advice equals the initial judgment." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of deference 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": [ "Epistemic deference to perceived expertise", "Deference to authority or office", "Status-based deference", "Ritual or interactional deference", "Judicial deference" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of deference 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": [ "Relying on specialists when evaluating claims outside one's competence.", "Yielding decisions to a recognized leader or officeholder.", "Expressing respect through titles, forms of address, turn-taking, and ceremonial conduct.", "Courts giving weight to another decision-maker's findings or interpretations under an applicable standard of review.", "Studying how social rank and professional hierarchy affect disagreement and participation." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of deference this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Advice-taking weight in judgment-adjustment experiments", "typical_range": "Often interpreted from 0, meaning no movement toward advice, to 1, meaning full adoption; values outside this interval can occur.", "unit": "Dimensionless ratio of judgment change to the difference between advice and initial judgment" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of deference 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": [ "Misplaced deference to someone whose expertise does not cover the question.", "Suppression of dissent or reporting of errors within a hierarchy.", "Reproduction of status inequalities through habitual yielding.", "Mistaking outward courtesy or strategic compliance for genuine agreement.", "Diffusion of responsibility when participants defer decisions without checking who remains accountable." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of deference 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": [ "Languages and communities differ in how honorifics, pronouns, titles, and gestures express deference.", "Expectations of deference vary across institutions, generations, and situations within the same society.", "Legal meanings and requirements of judicial deference differ by jurisdiction and type of decision." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of deference 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": "Respect", "difference": "Respect involves regard or recognition; deference additionally gives another's standing, judgment, or wishes precedence in some interaction." }, { "name": "Obedience", "difference": "Obedience is following a command; deference can occur without any command being issued." }, { "name": "Compliance", "difference": "Compliance is behavior consistent with a request or requirement; deference concerns yielding precedence and need not be prompted by a request." }, { "name": "Trust", "difference": "Trust involves reliance or acceptance of vulnerability; deference involves yielding judgment or conduct and can occur despite distrust." }, { "name": "Politeness", "difference": "Politeness manages socially appropriate interaction; deference specifically acknowledges precedence or standing." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of deference this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which documented theoretical traditions require yielding for deference, and which include symbolic recognition without yielding?", "Which contextual indicators reliably distinguish deference from politeness, strategic compliance and fear-driven submission?", "How should collective deference be attributed when members differ in endorsement or freedom to dissent?", "Which operational measures can compare deference across settings without treating culturally specific gestures as universal indicators?", "When do specialised uses, such as legal or epistemic deference, require linked models rather than additional distinctions within this registry entry?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 29 } }