{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:30:58Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 20.2, "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: 01a0952a-afdd-7250-82bf-d558f1b39455\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: intelligent disobedience\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch ", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 61.0, "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: 01a0952a-afe2-7312-b051-8a7c7971aaf7\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: intelligent disobedience\nRegistry id: vr.tr.intelligent-disobedience\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded " } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:47:20+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:36:47+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "definition", "distinguishing_features", "ethics", "in_scope", "out_of_scope", "purpose", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "09976045de25b77c8692137210c944a1c1a429d014f7706f4822b2a1458f1ee2" } ], "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T12:16:33+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q6044117", "registryId": "vr.tr.intelligent-disobedience", "name": "intelligent disobedience", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q6044117/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.intelligent-disobedience", "name": "intelligent disobedience", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to a service animal's protective refusal of a disabled handler's instruction while respecting the handler's autonomy and acknowledging uncertainty about the animal's judgment.", "definition": "Intelligent disobedience is a service animal's protective refusal to follow its disabled handler's instruction when the animal judges that compliance would be unsafe.", "scope_statement": "This model owns protective refusal by a service animal of a disabled handler's instruction on safety grounds, including the instruction, apparent danger, animal's response and evidence supporting that interpretation.", "in_scope": [ "Assessment identifies the service animal, its disabled handler and the instruction involved.", "Evidence concerns danger that compliance could pose to the handler or animal.", "Interpretation considers the animal's capabilities and the safety cues available to it.", "Protective responses may include refusal, stopping or departure from the instructed action.", "Assessment distinguishes evidence available at the time from subsequent outcomes." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Accidental noncompliance, misunderstanding or inability to execute an instruction are excluded.", "Animal noncompliance without evidence of a protective safety response is excluded.", "Human organisational disobedience, whistleblowing and civil disobedience are excluded.", "Refusal by machines or autonomous systems is excluded.", "Complete service-animal training methods are excluded." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A service animal receives an identifiable instruction from its disabled handler.", "The animal's departure from the instruction is interpreted as a protective response to perceived danger.", "Evidence must support a safety-related interpretation rather than distraction, uncertainty, incapacity or misunderstanding alone.", "Assessment separates the safety cues available to the animal at the time from whether the eventual outcome was favourable.", "The animal's internal judgment cannot be observed directly, so competing explanations and uncertainty must remain explicit." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Application setting", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Human organisational action | assistance-animal behaviour | automated-system action | other specified setting", "why_it_matters": "Different settings require different evidence of understanding, agency and justification." }, { "name": "Instruction relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor linked to instruction, issuer, recipient role and authority basis", "why_it_matters": "A departure can only be assessed against the instruction and relationship it concerns." }, { "name": "Protected consideration", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Immediate safety | stated mission | applicable obligation | ethical concern | other specified consideration", "why_it_matters": "Makes the asserted reason for disobedience explicit without assuming that it overrides the instruction." }, { "name": "Conflict assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Suspected | supported | contested | refuted | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Separates an actor's perception of conflict from an accepted justification." }, { "name": "Response form", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Refusal | temporary hold | clarification before execution | modified execution | alternative action", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes the extent and practical consequences of the departure." }, { "name": "Time available for intervention", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Seconds or minutes before the relevant action or consequence; unknown if unestablished", "why_it_matters": "Helps assess whether clarification or escalation was feasible." }, { "name": "Justification evidence", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Claim linked to observations, instructions, constraints and their availability at decision time", "why_it_matters": "Supports review without substituting hindsight for the actor's actual information." }, { "name": "Review judgement", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unreviewed | provisionally justified | disputed | unjustified | indeterminate", "why_it_matters": "Prevents the label 'intelligent' from being treated as automatic approval." } ], "affordances": [ "Reconstruct the instruction and identify the point at which execution departed from it", "Compare literal compliance with refusal, clarification, delay and modified execution", "Expose the evidence and priority assumptions supporting the departure", "Identify a bounded response and conditions for resuming or revising action", "Route unresolved conflicts to an appropriate reviewer when time permits", "Review decision quality separately from outcome and suggest changes to instructions" ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain intelligent disobedience in service-animal work using documented examples.", "Describe evidence and uncertainty when interpreting a service animal's apparent protective refusal." ], "must_not": [ "Treat a service animal's refusal as proof that an instruction was unsafe.", "Use the concept as blanket justification for overriding a disabled handler's autonomy.", "Distract or interfere with a working guide dog." ], "requires_human": [ "Assessing disputed or recurrent refusals that affect a service animal's work requires the handler and a qualified service-animal professional." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Protective refusal can safeguard disabled people who rely on service animals.", "Misinterpreting an animal's refusal can undermine the handler's autonomy and safety." ], "affected_parties": [ "Disabled service-animal handlers are affected.", "Working service animals are affected." ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; guide dog schools set standards for its training.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "Intelligent disobedience is encountered in guide-dog work when obeying a handler's instruction would expose the handler or dog to danger.", "It supports safer travel by allowing a trained dog to refuse an unsafe movement despite a familiar command." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Failure to refuse an unsafe instruction can expose the handler and dog to traffic, falls or collisions.", "Mistaking distraction or uncertainty for a protective refusal can lead to an incorrect assessment of the situation.", "Assuming that a dog will detect every danger can create unsafe reliance on its judgment." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No directly applicable formal standard or official classification is identified for this specific behavior itself.", "recognition": "A safety-motivated refusal cannot be established from appearance alone because interpreting the behavior requires situational and training evidence." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q6044117: intelligent disobedience", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6044117", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Intelligent disobedience", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_disobedience", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "concept-and-instance-boundaries", "name": "Concept and instance boundaries", "description": "Establishes which interpretation of intelligent disobedience is being used and what qualifies as an instance.", "rationale": "The term should not collapse distinct accounts of trained inhibition, professional judgement and justified refusal into one settled definition.", "layers": [ { "id": "working-interpretation", "name": "Working interpretation", "description": "Records the adopted meaning and the context in which it is asserted.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-definition", "name": "Attributed definition", "description": "Identify whose definition is being applied and whether it requires intention, successful protection, reasonable judgement or another criterion.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does intelligent disobedience mean in this setting, and whose account supplies that meaning?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attributed-definition-q01" }, { "text": "Does this account require a successful outcome, a defensible decision process, or both?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attributed-definition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "candidate-episode", "name": "Candidate episode", "description": "Tests whether an observed departure belongs within the adopted interpretation.", "findings": [ { "id": "disobedience-versus-other-departures", "name": "Disobedience versus other departures", "description": "Distinguish conflict-responsive departure from misunderstanding, incapacity, routine discretion and unrelated opposition.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows that the actor registered the instruction and departed in response to a relevant conflict?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "disobedience-versus-other-departures-q01" }, { "text": "Was the response already permitted by the instruction, making it ordinary execution of discretion rather than disobedience?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "disobedience-versus-other-departures-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instruction-purpose-and-priority", "name": "Instruction, purpose and priority", "description": "Reconstructs what was requested and the grounds on which another consideration might take priority.", "rationale": "A claim of intelligent disobedience depends on a specific relationship between an instruction and the purpose or constraint invoked against it.", "layers": [ { "id": "instruction-reconstruction", "name": "Instruction reconstruction", "description": "Captures the operative command, its context and the actor's understanding.", "findings": [ { "id": "operative-command", "name": "Operative command", "description": "Record the instruction as received, its issuer and any relevant qualifications or standing exceptions.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exactly was the actor instructed to do, by whom and under what conditions?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "operative-command-q01" }, { "text": "Which qualifications or standing exceptions were available to the actor when deciding?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "operative-command-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "claimed-priority", "name": "Claimed priority", "description": "Examines the purpose, duty or constraint invoked to justify departure.", "findings": [ { "id": "priority-basis", "name": "Priority basis", "description": "Make explicit the asserted priority and whether the actor, issuer and affected parties accept it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which purpose, duty or constraint would compliance threaten, and what supports that claim?", "kind": "definition", "id": "priority-basis-q01" }, { "text": "Who recognises this consideration as overriding the instruction, and where is that priority contested?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "priority-basis-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "conflict-evidence-and-judgement", "name": "Conflict evidence and judgement", "description": "Assesses what the actor could detect and reasonably infer before departing from the instruction.", "rationale": "Calling a departure intelligent requires examining its evidential basis without relying solely on its eventual success.", "layers": [ { "id": "available-signals", "name": "Available signals", "description": "Identifies the observations and uncertainty underlying the perceived conflict.", "findings": [ { "id": "compliance-risk-evidence", "name": "Compliance risk evidence", "description": "Connect the predicted consequence of compliance to evidence available at the decision point.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observable signals indicated that following the instruction could defeat the protected consideration?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "compliance-risk-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence was missing, ambiguous or inconsistent with that prediction?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "compliance-risk-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "decision-threshold", "name": "Decision threshold", "description": "Examines whether the evidence warranted intervention given urgency and the consequences of error.", "findings": [ { "id": "grounds-to-intervene", "name": "Grounds to intervene", "description": "Compare the consequences of mistaken compliance and mistaken refusal, accounting for the actor's competence and opportunity to check.", "questions": [ { "text": "What consequences could follow from an unnecessary refusal or an unjustified decision to comply?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "grounds-to-intervene-q01" }, { "text": "Given the available time and the actor's competence, should the actor intervene, seek clarification or obtain additional evidence?", "kind": "action", "id": "grounds-to-intervene-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "bounded-departure-and-review", "name": "Bounded departure and review", "description": "Defines the selected response, its limits and how its justification will be reassessed.", "rationale": "A defensible reason to question an instruction does not by itself justify every alternative action or an indefinite refusal.", "layers": [ { "id": "response-selection", "name": "Response selection", "description": "Chooses a departure proportionate to the identified conflict and specifies its stopping conditions.", "findings": [ { "id": "least-departure-that-addresses-conflict", "name": "Least departure that addresses the conflict", "description": "Compare feasible responses and identify how much deviation is needed to protect the stated consideration.", "questions": [ { "text": "Would clarification, a temporary hold or a limited modification address the conflict, or is refusal necessary?", "kind": "action", "id": "least-departure-that-addresses-conflict-q01" }, { "text": "What new evidence or changed condition should trigger resumption, revision or escalation?", "kind": "action", "id": "least-departure-that-addresses-conflict-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "accountable-reassessment", "name": "Accountable reassessment", "description": "Reviews the reasoning and consequences while preserving disagreement about the action's legitimacy.", "findings": [ { "id": "decision-and-outcome-review", "name": "Decision and outcome review", "description": "Record the actor's contemporaneous basis, observed consequences and subsequent judgements as distinct elements.", "questions": [ { "text": "Was the departure defensible on the information available then, independently of whether the outcome was favourable?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "decision-and-outcome-review-q01" }, { "text": "What should change in the instruction, training or review process following this episode?", "kind": "action", "id": "decision-and-outcome-review-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; guide-dog behaviour and its organisational extension are both included, but their mechanisms and criteria should not be treated as identical.", "In guide-dog work, the term describes trained behaviour and does not establish human-like moral reasoning.", "No universal taxonomy, identifier, measurement range or dedicated regulatory standard is confidently recalled." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of intelligent disobedience 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": [ "Guide dogs learn to refuse or interrupt a handler's movement command when an obstacle or other immediate hazard makes compliance unsafe.", "Leadership and followership training uses the concept to discuss when employees should question or refuse harmful instructions from authority." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of intelligent disobedience 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": [ "Complying with an instruction despite a hazard defeats the protective function.", "Refusing a safe instruction unnecessarily can impede the task and weaken trust.", "Mistaking ordinary noncompliance or inadequate training for informed refusal can conceal performance problems.", "In organisations, retaliation or strong pressure to obey can discourage justified refusal.", "A person may invoke the concept to justify refusal without adequately understanding the instruction or its consequences." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of intelligent disobedience 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": "Obedience", "difference": "Obedience carries out the instruction; intelligent disobedience makes compliance conditional on safety or the underlying purpose." }, { "name": "Civil disobedience", "difference": "Civil disobedience concerns principled violation of laws or public requirements, typically as protest; intelligent disobedience concerns a particular instruction and need not involve political protest." }, { "name": "Insubordination", "difference": "Insubordination describes refusal or defiance of authority; intelligent disobedience additionally claims a task-relevant justification for refusing." }, { "name": "Whistleblowing", "difference": "Whistleblowing reports suspected wrongdoing; intelligent disobedience withholds compliance, whether or not wrongdoing is reported." }, { "name": "Dissent", "difference": "Dissent expresses disagreement; intelligent disobedience involves declining or interrupting the instructed action." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of intelligent disobedience this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which established definitions distinguish intelligent disobedience in assistance-animal training, human organisations and automated systems, and what can validly be shared across them?", "Does the concept require deliberate recognition of an instruction-conflict relationship, or can trained context-sensitive inhibition qualify without attributing reflective intention?", "When does an authorised exception remain disobedience rather than become ordinary compliance with a broader instruction?", "Can a reasonably justified but unsuccessful departure count as intelligent disobedience, and whose judgement determines that classification?", "What validated observations or assessment methods distinguish justified intervention from post hoc rationalisation, particularly when the actor cannot explain its reasoning?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 12, "questions": 20 } }