{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:48:09Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 21.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a0953a-4b19-7463-8ccc-6fb5c3b99c52\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Korean honorifics\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: 10", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 69.9, "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: 01a0953a-4b13-7c40-8d06-9776d04f39d7\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Korean honorifics\nRegistry id: vr.tr.korean-honorifics\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entr" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:47:52+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:31+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q467885", "registryId": "vr.tr.korean-honorifics", "name": "Korean honorifics", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q467885/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.korean-honorifics", "name": "Korean honorifics", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise Korean honorific choices, assess their fit to a documented interaction, and propose context-sensitive wording while preserving uncertainty about social expectations.", "definition": "Korean honorifics are grammatical, lexical, and interactional resources through which speakers express respect toward referents and position themselves socially relative to addressees, with choices shaped by relationships, setting, and communicative intent.", "scope_statement": "This model owns Korean honorifics as a system of linguistic choices through which speakers position addressees, referents and themselves, including grammatical marking, speech levels, honorific vocabulary and context-dependent interpretation.", "in_scope": [ "Addressee-oriented speech levels and their realisation in sentence endings", "Subject honorification, including the prefinal marker -(으)시-", "Honorific and humble vocabulary, particles, titles and address expressions", "Relationships among speaker, addressee and referents that inform honorific choices", "Register shifts, mixed marking and interpretations within situated interaction", "Evidence, variation and uncertainty behind judgments of appropriate usage" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Korean grammar and vocabulary beyond their contribution to honorification", "General Korean etiquette, including bowing and seating arrangements", "Korean society or age hierarchy treated as a complete social model", "Honorific systems of other languages", "A complete Korean language curriculum or proficiency assessment", "Personal identity records beyond interaction-relevant roles and stated preferences" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The expression must be interpreted within Korean linguistic usage; a respectful gesture alone is not an instance.", "Record separately whom a sentence ending addresses and whom a predicate or lexical choice honours; these need not be the same person.", "Distinguish grammatical honorific marking from perceived politeness: one does not by itself establish the other.", "Distinguish speech level from subject honorification rather than treating all honorific forms as a single ascending scale.", "Require interactional evidence before treating a change of ending or address term as evidence of changed intimacy, disrespect or status." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Honorification target", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Expression linked to addressee, subject referent, other referent or multiple targets; unresolved where necessary", "why_it_matters": "Prevents addressee treatment from being conflated with the treatment of people being discussed." }, { "name": "Speech-level classification", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Source-attributed Korean speech-level label, with mixed, ambiguous and unclassified values", "why_it_matters": "Supports comparison of endings without assuming that every descriptive tradition uses the same inventory." }, { "name": "Honorific realisation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Sentence ending, -(으)시-, particle, lexical honorific, humble expression, title or address term; multiple values allowed", "why_it_matters": "Identifies which linguistic resources carry the relevant distinction." }, { "name": "Participant relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Documented role, relative seniority, familiarity, institutional relationship and expressed address preferences", "why_it_matters": "Makes recommendations sensitive to actual relationships rather than inferred demographic stereotypes." }, { "name": "Interaction setting", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Conversation, workplace exchange, service encounter, classroom, public address, written correspondence or other documented setting", "why_it_matters": "The same participants can use different forms in different activities." }, { "name": "Local register trajectory", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Stable, shifting, mixed, quoted, repaired or insufficient context", "why_it_matters": "A single utterance may conceal how participants establish or renegotiate their manner of speaking." }, { "name": "Appropriateness assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Supported, contested, context-dependent or unresolved, with evidence and assessor perspective", "why_it_matters": "Separates an observable form from a judgment about whether its use is acceptable." } ], "affordances": [ "Annotate Korean utterances with honorific forms, their targets and uncertain analyses.", "Compare alternative formulations while explaining changes in addressee treatment and referent treatment separately.", "Request missing relationship or setting information before recommending a consequential register choice.", "Detect shifts or mismatches for contextual review without automatically labelling them errors.", "Generate context-qualified revisions that preserve propositional content and documented address preferences.", "Record competing speaker judgments and the evidence supporting each interpretation." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain Korean honorific forms and how speakers choose them.", "Translate with the speech level that suits the relationship, noting where the choice is uncertain." ], "must_not": [ "Use plain or familiar forms to address users or third parties where respect is expected.", "Present one speech level as always correct regardless of relationship and setting.", "Use honorific choices to infer and record people's age, rank or relationships without consent." ], "requires_human": [ "Choosing the register of formal messages sent on someone's behalf." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Wrong honorifics can offend, embarrass or damage relationships.", "Honorific systems reflect social hierarchies that some speakers are working to change." ], "affected_parties": [ "Korean speakers", "Learners", "People addressed in messages" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the language; national language institutes give guidance on its standard form.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "Korean honorifics occur in conversation, correspondence, public communication and dialogue across formal and informal settings.", "Speakers use speech levels, honorific vocabulary and grammatical marking to express respect and manage relationships with listeners and people being discussed.", "Translation and language assistance require attention to the relationship, setting and speaker intent." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Inappropriate honorific choices can cause offence or imply unintended distance, intimacy or disrespect.", "Rigid assumptions about age, gender or status can reproduce stereotypes and misrepresent relationships.", "Translation that removes or exaggerates honorific distinctions can distort characterization and communicative intent." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No single formal standard or regulation governs contextually appropriate Korean honorific choices across interactions.", "recognition": "Korean honorifics are linguistic resources identified through language and context rather than a distinctive physical appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q467885: Korean honorifics", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q467885", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Korean honorifics", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_honorifics", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "participants-and-targets", "name": "Participants and honorification targets", "description": "Identify who speaks, who is addressed and who is referred to before interpreting honorific marking.", "rationale": "Korean honorific analysis requires separate accounts of addressee treatment and referent treatment.", "layers": [ { "id": "interaction-roles", "name": "Interaction roles", "description": "Resolve the participants relevant to the utterance, including omitted or indirectly identified participants.", "findings": [ { "id": "speaker-addressee-referent-map", "name": "Speaker, addressee and referent map", "description": "Record participant roles and distinguish explicit identification from contextual inference.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who is speaking, who is being addressed, and which people are referred to in this utterance?", "kind": "definition", "id": "speaker-addressee-referent-map-q01" }, { "text": "What preceding discourse supports the identification of an omitted subject or implicit addressee?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "speaker-addressee-referent-map-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "honorification-target-links", "name": "Honorification target links", "description": "Associate each relevant expression with the participant whose treatment it helps establish.", "findings": [ { "id": "separate-target-assignment", "name": "Separate target assignment", "description": "Keep the target of a sentence ending distinct from the target of predicate, particle or lexical honorification.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which participant is targeted by each sentence ending, -(으)시- occurrence and honorific lexical choice?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "separate-target-assignment-q01" }, { "text": "Does this analysis incorrectly assume that honouring the subject also determines how the addressee is treated?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "separate-target-assignment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "grammatical-honorific-resources", "name": "Grammatical honorific resources", "description": "Describe sentence endings and subject-honorific marking as independently inspectable resources.", "rationale": "An agent needs to explain which grammatical choice changes which aspect of participant treatment.", "layers": [ { "id": "speech-level-endings", "name": "Speech-level endings", "description": "Identify endings and assign speech-level labels using an explicitly named descriptive framework.", "findings": [ { "id": "ending-and-level-analysis", "name": "Ending and level analysis", "description": "Record the actual ending, sentence type and supported speech-level classification.", "questions": [ { "text": "What ending occurs, and how does the selected reference classify it for this sentence type?", "kind": "definition", "id": "ending-and-level-analysis-q01" }, { "text": "Does the available utterance support one speech-level label, or must the classification remain ambiguous?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "ending-and-level-analysis-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-honorific-marking", "name": "Subject-honorific marking", "description": "Inspect -(으)시- and its relationship to the predicate, subject and discourse context.", "findings": [ { "id": "si-form-and-interpretation", "name": "-(으)시- form and interpretation", "description": "Record the marker's occurrence or absence and the evidence for its referential interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Where does -(으)시- occur in the predicate, and which referent is understood as its target?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "si-form-and-interpretation-q01" }, { "text": "What contextual and grammatical evidence would justify adding, retaining or removing this marker?", "kind": "action", "id": "si-form-and-interpretation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "lexical-and-address-choices", "name": "Lexical and address choices", "description": "Capture honorification expressed through vocabulary, particles and ways of naming or addressing people.", "rationale": "Changing sentence endings alone cannot account for all Korean honorific choices.", "layers": [ { "id": "honorific-and-humble-expressions", "name": "Honorific and humble expressions", "description": "Analyse lexical and particle choices together with the participants and meanings they involve.", "findings": [ { "id": "lexical-choice-and-role-alignment", "name": "Lexical choice and role alignment", "description": "Record the contextual interpretation of alternatives such as 주다, 드리다 and 주시다 without treating them as interchangeable politeness labels.", "questions": [ { "text": "For the expression used, who performs the action, who receives it, and whose treatment changes?", "kind": "definition", "id": "lexical-choice-and-role-alignment-q01" }, { "text": "Which dictionary entry or attested example supports the proposed honorific or humble interpretation in this construction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "lexical-choice-and-role-alignment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "titles-and-address", "name": "Titles and address", "description": "Inspect names, role titles, kinship terms, suffixes and avoided address expressions in their local setting.", "findings": [ { "id": "address-choice-fit", "name": "Address choice fit", "description": "Record how a person is addressed or mentioned, including stated preferences and differences between direct address and reference.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the expression a direct address or a third-person reference, and what supports the use of 씨, 님, a title or a kinship term here?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "address-choice-fit-q01" }, { "text": "What address preference or established local practice should a proposed replacement preserve?", "kind": "action", "id": "address-choice-fit-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "situated-use-and-register-change", "name": "Situated use and register change", "description": "Relate observable choices to relationships, activities and unfolding interaction.", "rationale": "A grammatically identifiable honorific form does not independently establish its social effect or appropriateness.", "layers": [ { "id": "relationship-and-setting", "name": "Relationship and setting", "description": "Record interaction-relevant expectations without reducing register selection to age or rank alone.", "findings": [ { "id": "contextual-expectations", "name": "Contextual expectations", "description": "Distinguish participant preferences, institutional conventions and analyst assumptions about suitable usage.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence establishes the participants' familiarity, roles and expectations for 존댓말 or 반말 in this encounter?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contextual-expectations-q01" }, { "text": "Which missing contextual fact could change the recommended ending or address expression?", "kind": "action", "id": "contextual-expectations-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "turn-by-turn-register", "name": "Turn-by-turn register", "description": "Track changes across turns and participant responses to those changes.", "findings": [ { "id": "register-shifts-and-uptake", "name": "Register shifts and uptake", "description": "Record a switch in forms separately from hypotheses about intimacy, distancing, humour, conflict or quotation.", "questions": [ { "text": "At which turn does the ending, address term or honorific marking change, and what activity accompanies that change?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "register-shifts-and-uptake-q01" }, { "text": "Does the recipient's response support an interpretation of the switch, or is its social meaning unresolved?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "register-shifts-and-uptake-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-variation-and-agent-decisions", "name": "Evidence, variation and agent decisions", "description": "Ground classifications and recommendations in attributable evidence while retaining disagreement and contextual limits.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish a reference's prescription, observed usage and a particular speaker's judgment before intervening.", "layers": [ { "id": "descriptive-frameworks-and-variation", "name": "Descriptive frameworks and variation", "description": "Record how sources define honorific categories and which populations or settings their claims cover.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-analysis-and-judgments", "name": "Attributed analysis and judgments", "description": "Preserve competing classifications and acceptability judgments with their source, scope and supporting examples.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which reference defines the speech-level inventory and the distinction between honorification and politeness used here?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-analysis-and-judgments-q01" }, { "text": "Do differing judgments concern grammar, institutional prescription, regional usage, generation or the specific interaction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attributed-analysis-and-judgments-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "context-qualified-intervention", "name": "Context-qualified intervention", "description": "Turn the analysis into explainable annotations, revisions or requests for missing information.", "findings": [ { "id": "revision-with-explicit-assumptions", "name": "Revision with explicit assumptions", "description": "Propose wording only with a clear account of the intended participant treatment and the assumptions supporting it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which ending, marker, lexical item or address term should change to achieve the intended treatment of each participant?", "kind": "action", "id": "revision-with-explicit-assumptions-q01" }, { "text": "Should the agent supply one revision, offer context-dependent alternatives or request clarification because the evidence is insufficient?", "kind": "action", "id": "revision-with-explicit-assumptions-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": [ "This is a recall-based account; no sources were consulted.", "Analyses differ over the boundary between honorification, humility, speech levels, and politeness; the listed kinds overlap rather than forming an exclusive taxonomy.", "Speech-level inventories and regional usage claims should be checked against descriptions specifying period, dialect, and conversational setting." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Korean honorifics 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": [ "Subject honorification, commonly marked by the verbal suffix -(으)시-", "Addressee honorification, expressed chiefly through sentence-final speech-level endings", "Object or recipient honorification, including humble verbs that elevate another participant", "Honorific vocabulary, including special nouns and verbs", "Honorific titles, address terms, and suffixes such as -님" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Korean honorifics 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": [ "Choosing speech levels in conversations with elders, strangers, friends, and colleagues", "Referring respectfully to people through predicates, vocabulary, and titles", "Managing professional relationships in workplaces and service encounters", "Expressing intimacy, distance, deference, irony, or shifts in interpersonal stance", "Teaching Korean and translating dialogue while preserving social relationships" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Korean honorifics 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": [ "Using an unexpectedly low speech level can convey disrespect or unwanted familiarity.", "Excessive or unexpected honorification can create distance or sound sarcastic.", "Confusing subject honorification with addressee honorification can misrepresent who is being respected.", "Treating age or rank as a mechanical rule overlooks familiarity, institutional roles, and conversational context.", "Translating honorific forms literally can lose their interpersonal meaning." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Korean honorifics 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": [ "South Korean and North Korean usage differs in address conventions, institutional terminology, and the social distribution of honorific forms.", "Regional Korean varieties differ in sentence-final forms and local conventions for expressing respect.", "Diaspora usage varies with community history, language contact, and intergenerational language transmission." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Korean honorifics 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": "Korean speech levels", "difference": "Speech levels organize sentence-final choices toward the addressee; Korean honorifics also include respect toward referents and honorific vocabulary." }, { "name": "Politeness", "difference": "Politeness concerns context-dependent judgments of social conduct; using an honorific form does not invariably make an utterance polite." }, { "name": "Formality", "difference": "Formality concerns register and setting; respectful Korean speech can use forms conventionally classified as informal." }, { "name": "Honorifics", "difference": "Honorifics are a cross-linguistic category; Korean honorifics are its language-specific grammatical and interactional realization." }, { "name": "Korean kinship terminology", "difference": "Kinship terms identify or invoke relationships and can serve as address terms; they are not inherently equivalent to honorific marking." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Korean honorifics this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which descriptive references should anchor the speech-level inventory, and how should disagreements about category boundaries be represented?", "How should this model represent disputed or extended uses of -(으)시-, including examples whose apparent target is not a person?", "What evidence is needed to distinguish regional, generational, institutional and individual variation in judgments of appropriate honorific use?", "How should reported speech, fictional dialogue and digitally mediated interaction alter assumptions about speaker, addressee and register?", "Under what documented conditions do expectations about honouring a referent change with the addressee, including practices discussed under 압존법?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }