{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:34:59Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 25.4, "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: 01a0952e-3daf-79b0-8e38-7caecd9ebb58\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: irregular warfare\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": 68.9, "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: 01a0952e-3dab-7743-a276-188c50f38575\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: irregular warfare\nRegistry id: vr.tr.irregular-warfare\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": "2026-10-06T08:43:40+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners", "standards_and_regulation" ] }, "revisions": [ { "at": "2026-10-07T11:36:47+00:00", "engine": "codex", "fields": [ "definition", "distinguishing_features", "in_scope", "scope_statement" ], "answering_review": "e40c90b5a555d96f27163018ad2232658aa12d1222b0fad25966d081ff648720" } ], "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-Q6073630", "registryId": "vr.tr.irregular-warfare", "name": "irregular warfare", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q6073630/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.irregular-warfare", "name": "irregular warfare", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess proposed instances of irregular warfare, preserve competing interpretations, and identify appropriate analytical, protective, and accountability actions.", "definition": "Irregular warfare is warfare in which at least one participating combatant force is an irregular military force rather than a regular armed force.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the classification and assessment of warfare involving at least one irregular military force, including its relations with regular forces, affected populations, political objectives and methods.", "in_scope": [ "Classification considers evidence that at least one participating combatant force is an irregular military force.", "Analysis considers political objectives and contests over authority, legitimacy, influence and control.", "Analysis considers relations among state forces, non-state armed groups, external supporters and affected populations.", "Analysis considers relationships among irregular forces, conventional operations and wider political campaigns.", "Assessment considers evidence of conflict evolution, civilian consequences and constraints on proposed responses." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Detailed targeting, weapons employment, sabotage, or operational attack planning", "Complete models of insurgency, counterinsurgency, terrorism, or unconventional warfare as separate concepts", "Full organisational models of participating states, armed forces, and armed groups", "Complete histories of individual wars or campaigns", "Authoritative legal determinations of conflict classification, individual status, or criminal responsibility" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Classification requires evidence that at least one participating combatant force is irregular; non-state affiliation alone does not establish that status.", "Indirect approaches or contests over political authority, influence or population relationships do not establish this classification without an irregular military participant.", "Distinguish irregular warfare from asymmetry: unequal capabilities alone do not establish the proposed classification.", "Distinguish the wider conflict or campaign from particular tactics: a terrorist act, ambush, or deception does not by itself classify the whole conflict.", "Allow irregular and conventional activity to coexist; classification must specify the actors, location, period, and level of analysis to which it applies." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Definition adopted", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Attributed definition linked to its issuing institution or author, version, date, and source", "why_it_matters": "Different definitions may classify the same case differently." }, { "name": "Classification assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Candidate | supported under selected definition | contested | unsupported | insufficient evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates an analytical conclusion from an unexamined label." }, { "name": "Unit of analysis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Conflict | campaign | actor activity | episode, with geographic and temporal bounds", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a local method from being treated as the defining character of an entire war." }, { "name": "Political objective", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Stated and inferred objectives concerning authority, governance, influence, autonomy, or displacement of an opponent", "why_it_matters": "Connects observed activity to the political contest without treating actor statements as verified intent." }, { "name": "Actor and support relationships", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Attributed links of command, sponsorship, cooperation, rivalry, dependence, and civilian interaction", "why_it_matters": "Formal labels may conceal fragmented authority or disputed external involvement." }, { "name": "Population relationship", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Reported consent, coercion, accommodation, resistance, mixed experience, or unknown; differentiated by group and locality", "why_it_matters": "Observed compliance does not establish voluntary support or legitimacy." }, { "name": "Relationship to conventional warfare", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Predominantly irregular | concurrent with conventional operations | changing over time | disputed | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Supports assessment of mixed and evolving conflicts." }, { "name": "Civilian harm evidence", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Source-specific counts or ranges of deaths, injuries, displacement, and service disruption, with period and coverage", "why_it_matters": "Makes consequences visible while retaining uncertainty and avoiding unsupported attribution." }, { "name": "Assessment confidence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Qualitative confidence with evidence coverage, corroboration, contradictions, and access limitations", "why_it_matters": "Prevents precision or certainty unsupported by the available record." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare how competing definitions classify a bounded case.", "Map attributed actor relationships and contested claims to authority.", "Separate observed behaviour, actor claims, and analyst interpretations.", "Track changes in conflict character and population experience over time.", "Identify evidence gaps, civilian protection concerns, and questions requiring qualified legal review.", "Produce an auditable assessment explaining why a classification is supported, contested, or unresolved." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain the contested concept of irregular warfare and its history, citing scholarly sources.", "Describe the laws of armed conflict that apply to it." ], "must_not": [ "Assist in planning, conducting or supporting any armed operation or attack.", "Help recruit fighters or spread propaganda for armed groups.", "Help target civilians or civilian infrastructure.", "Present atrocities as legitimate tactics." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing analysis of ongoing conflicts." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Irregular conflicts often kill and displace civilians.", "Labelling groups can legitimize or delegitimize them." ], "affected_parties": [ "Civilians in conflict areas", "Displaced people", "Combatants" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; states and international law govern conduct of war.", "master_systems": [] }, "standards_and_regulation": [ "Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, treaties of international humanitarian law adopted by states." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Irregular warfare is discussed in military history, security analysis and the study of conflicts involving irregular armed groups.", "The term helps examine conflicts in which political influence, relationships with populations and asymmetric methods shape military activity.", "Its meaning varies across institutions, so analyses need to state the definition being used." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Violence involving irregular forces can expose civilians to death, injury, displacement and loss of essential services.", "Uncertain affiliation and fragmented command can increase misidentification and weaken accountability for abuses.", "Coercion and intimidation can undermine civilian autonomy and access to humanitarian assistance.", "Overbroad use of the category can stigmatize communities or obscure distinctions between civilians and combatants." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Irregular warfare is an analytical category that cannot be reliably identified from clothing, equipment or any other visual cue alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q6073630: irregular warfare", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6073630", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Irregular warfare", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_warfare", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "definitions-and-boundaries", "name": "Definitions and boundaries", "description": "Represent the competing meanings of irregular warfare and test their application to specific cases.", "rationale": "The model must preserve definitional disagreement rather than silently adopting one institution's vocabulary.", "layers": [ { "id": "definition-provenance", "name": "Definition provenance", "description": "Record who defines the concept, when, and for what analytical or institutional purpose.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-definition", "name": "Attributed definition", "description": "An assessment should identify its chosen definition and any relevant alternatives.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which institution or author supplies the definition, and what dated text establishes its wording?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-definition-q01" }, { "text": "Does this definition require armed violence, indirect methods, a population-centred contest, or another condition?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attributed-definition-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-tests", "name": "Classification tests", "description": "Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria at an explicit scale.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-case-classification", "name": "Bounded case classification", "description": "Test the case against neighbouring concepts without treating them as interchangeable.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence distinguishes this case from conventional warfare with unequal forces or isolated irregular tactics?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-case-classification-q01" }, { "text": "Does the classification apply to the whole conflict, a campaign, one actor's activity, or a particular episode?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-case-classification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "political-contest-and-populations", "name": "Political contest and populations", "description": "Examine the authority being contested and the different experiences of affected populations.", "rationale": "Political claims and population relationships require direct assessment rather than inference from military activity.", "layers": [ { "id": "authority-and-objectives", "name": "Authority and objectives", "description": "Distinguish political aims, claims to legitimacy, and observed governing practices.", "findings": [ { "id": "contested-political-order", "name": "Contested political order", "description": "Record which arrangements actors seek to preserve, replace, weaken, or influence.", "questions": [ { "text": "What political authority or arrangement does each actor seek to change or defend?", "kind": "definition", "id": "contested-political-order-q01" }, { "text": "Which objectives are publicly stated, and which are inferred from independently documented behaviour?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "contested-political-order-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "population-experience", "name": "Population experience", "description": "Record variation in consent, coercion, accommodation, and access to governance.", "findings": [ { "id": "support-and-compliance", "name": "Support and compliance", "description": "Assess population relationships without equating silence, participation, or compliance with support.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence distinguishes voluntary support from coercion, survival strategies, or lack of alternatives?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "support-and-compliance-q01" }, { "text": "How do experiences differ across communities, locations, and periods, and whose accounts are missing?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "support-and-compliance-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "actors-and-conflict-configuration", "name": "Actors and conflict configuration", "description": "Represent participating actors, disputed relationships, and the coexistence of different forms of warfare.", "rationale": "A state-versus-non-state binary cannot adequately describe every candidate case.", "layers": [ { "id": "actor-relationships", "name": "Actor relationships", "description": "Assess organisational autonomy, external involvement, and changing alignments.", "findings": [ { "id": "command-support-and-autonomy", "name": "Command, support, and autonomy", "description": "Distinguish demonstrated control from assistance, alignment, or allegations of sponsorship.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which command and support relationships are corroborated, and which remain allegations?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "command-support-and-autonomy-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows whether a supported armed group acts autonomously or under another actor's direction?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "command-support-and-autonomy-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "forms-and-transitions", "name": "Forms and transitions", "description": "Track how irregular activity relates to conventional operations and neighbouring conflict concepts.", "findings": [ { "id": "mixed-conflict-character", "name": "Mixed conflict character", "description": "Represent coexistence and change without forcing a single permanent classification.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which documented activities support an irregular classification, and how do they relate to conventional operations?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "mixed-conflict-character-q01" }, { "text": "What dated changes in organisation, objectives, or activity warrant reassessing the classification?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "mixed-conflict-character-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-outcomes", "name": "Evidence and outcomes", "description": "Evaluate contested reporting and assess outcomes beyond military activity counts.", "rationale": "Irregular warfare assessments need to distinguish information claims, observable changes, and causal explanations.", "layers": [ { "id": "contested-information", "name": "Contested information", "description": "Assess claims made under conditions of restricted access and political competition.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-corroboration", "name": "Claim corroboration", "description": "Keep claims about control, support, and success separate from the evidence available to verify them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which claims rely on participant reporting, and what independent corroboration exists?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claim-corroboration-q01" }, { "text": "How do restricted access, intimidation, or selective reporting affect what can be observed?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "claim-corroboration-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "political-and-social-outcomes", "name": "Political and social outcomes", "description": "Assess changes in authority, security, and population experience against explicit objectives.", "findings": [ { "id": "outcome-versus-activity", "name": "Outcome versus activity", "description": "Distinguish recorded activity from durable political or protective effects.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence indicates lasting changes in authority, perceived legitimacy, or civilian security rather than temporary military presence?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "outcome-versus-activity-q01" }, { "text": "Which alternative explanations challenge the claim that a particular campaign caused those changes?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "outcome-versus-activity-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "protection-and-response-constraints", "name": "Protection and response constraints", "description": "Connect the assessment to civilian protection, legal review, and accountable analytical action.", "rationale": "An irregular warfare label must not substitute for assessing harm, applicable rules, or the consequences of a response.", "layers": [ { "id": "civilian-consequences", "name": "Civilian consequences", "description": "Record harm and exposure without assigning collective responsibility to populations.", "findings": [ { "id": "harm-and-vulnerability", "name": "Harm and vulnerability", "description": "Assess documented civilian consequences and uncertainty about attribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "What civilian deaths, injuries, displacement, coercion, or service disruption are documented, with what coverage and uncertainty?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "harm-and-vulnerability-q01" }, { "text": "What protective or humanitarian referral is justified by the evidence, and could disclosing identifying information expose people to retaliation?", "kind": "action", "id": "harm-and-vulnerability-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "legal-and-decision-boundaries", "name": "Legal and decision boundaries", "description": "Separate analytical terminology from legal findings and authority to act.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-does-not-authorise-action", "name": "Classification and authority to act", "description": "Require separate grounds for legal conclusions and proposed interventions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which questions about conflict classification, individual status, or applicable obligations require qualified legal assessment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "classification-does-not-authorise-action-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence, mandate, and review are needed before an agent recommends a response affecting people or institutions?", "kind": "action", "id": "classification-does-not-authorise-action-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 description; no sources were consulted.", "Check the edition and wording of any doctrinal definition before treating it as authoritative; the listed kinds are overlapping practices rather than a universal taxonomy.", "Irregular warfare is not a separate legal classification of armed conflict and has no universally accepted measurement scale." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of irregular warfare 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": [ "Insurgency", "Counterinsurgency", "Guerrilla warfare", "Unconventional warfare through resistance movements", "Support to a partner government's internal defence" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of irregular warfare this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "United States Department of Defense Directive 3000.07, Irregular Warfare", "United States joint military doctrine, Joint Publication 3-24, Counterinsurgency", "The 1949 Geneva Conventions, adopted by states, govern relevant conduct when the applicable armed-conflict thresholds and classifications are met" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of irregular warfare 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": [ "Military planning and education concerning insurgencies, resistance movements and counterinsurgency", "Organising assistance to partner security forces and institutions", "Analysing interactions between armed coercion, political mobilisation and legitimacy", "Studying conflicts in which conventional and irregular operations coexist" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of irregular warfare 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": [ "Civilian harm, displacement and reprisals", "Mistaking tactical success or enemy casualty counts for durable political success", "Misidentifying combatants or treating civilian populations as collectively responsible", "Partner forces pursuing divergent objectives or committing abuses", "Using an expansive label that obscures differences among insurgency, terrorism, political competition and armed conflict" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of irregular warfare 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": [ "United States defence usage treats irregular warfare as an umbrella concept; definitions have differed in their emphasis on population legitimacy, indirect approaches and asymmetric capabilities.", "Other national and historical traditions organise related practices under terms such as partisan warfare, revolutionary war or people's war; these are not exact equivalents." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of irregular warfare 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": "Conventional warfare", "difference": "Typically centres on direct operations by organised military forces against opposing forces; irregular warfare places greater emphasis on indirect approaches and political or population relationships, although both can occur together." }, { "name": "Insurgency", "difference": "An organised struggle to challenge an established authority or political order; irregular warfare also encompasses efforts to oppose insurgencies and other indirect forms of conflict." }, { "name": "Guerrilla warfare", "difference": "A method of combat associated with dispersed forces and intermittent attacks; irregular warfare encompasses broader political, organisational and military activity." }, { "name": "Terrorism", "difference": "Concerns violence or threats intended to intimidate or coerce wider audiences, with definitions disputed; it can occur within irregular warfare but does not define the whole category." }, { "name": "Hybrid warfare", "difference": "Emphasises the combination of different instruments and modes of conflict, commonly including conventional and irregular methods." }, { "name": "Asymmetric warfare", "difference": "Emphasises consequential differences in opponents' capabilities or approaches; asymmetry also occurs outside irregular warfare." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of irregular warfare this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which institutional and scholarly definitions should anchor this model, and where do their inclusion criteria materially disagree?", "How should the model treat coercive political activity below the threshold of armed conflict when a selected definition includes it?", "What evidence is sufficient to establish that indirect political contestation is central to a campaign rather than incidental to conventional warfare?", "Which measures of legitimacy, influence, and control remain credible where respondents face coercion and researchers have restricted access?", "Does the existing Vercy catalogue already contain a world model covering this concept that should serve as its single source of truth?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }