{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:43:16Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23.1, "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: 01a094fe-cffc-7b23-8cd9-b2b6996d0fd2\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: final-obstruent devoicing\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 74.7, "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: 01a094fe-cff4-7d63-bb27-0795c2fa0ec4\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: final-obstruent devoicing\nRegistry id: vr.tr.final-obstruent-devoicing\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folde" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:39:52+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:32+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q779384", "registryId": "vr.tr.final-obstruent-devoicing", "name": "final-obstruent devoicing", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q779384/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.final-obstruent-devoicing", "name": "final-obstruent devoicing", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify, compare and evaluate analyses of final-obstruent devoicing while distinguishing phonological contrast loss from gradient phonetic changes.", "definition": "Final-obstruent devoicing is a phonological process in which a language's voiced obstruents are realized as voiceless in a specified final position, typically at the end of a word or syllable, often neutralizing a voicing contrast.", "scope_statement": "This model owns final-obstruent devoicing as a linguistic process and its language-specific descriptions: affected obstruents, triggering boundaries, laryngeal changes, alternations, variation and supporting evidence.", "in_scope": [ "Identification of obstruents affected by devoicing in a specified language variety", "Word-, syllable- or phrase-final environments proposed to trigger the process", "Relations between final outputs and contrastive or alternating nonfinal forms", "Phonological neutralization and the phonetic cues used to test it", "Interactions with morphology, resyllabification and adjacent segments", "Variation across speakers, speech styles and elicitation conditions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete phonological inventories and grammars of individual languages", "General voicing assimilation without an independently established final-position condition", "Initial or intervocalic devoicing unrelated to final-obstruent devoicing", "Final consonant deletion or debuccalization considered as separate processes", "Orthographic spelling conventions treated as direct evidence of pronunciation", "Clinical voice disorders and nonlinguistic uses of the word devoicing" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The affected segment is an obstruent; final sonorant devoicing alone does not establish this process.", "The account identifies a final-position domain and tests whether that boundary predicts devoicing.", "A devoicing analysis requires evidence for a laryngeal change or alternation, rather than merely observing an inherently voiceless final consonant.", "Finality must be separated from adjacent-segment effects before attributing a pattern to final devoicing rather than voicing assimilation.", "A claim of complete neutralization requires testing whether formerly contrasting categories remain distinguishable; reduced vocal-fold vibration alone does not settle that claim." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Language variety and speaker population", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named language, dialect or variety linked to sampled speakers", "why_it_matters": "Prevents a result from one population being treated as a universal property of a language." }, { "name": "Affected obstruent classes", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicit segment sets, grouped as stops, fricatives or affricates where appropriate", "why_it_matters": "Establishes which segments participate and which provide counterexamples." }, { "name": "Triggering final domain", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Syllable-final, word-final, prosodic-word-final, phrase-final or unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Different boundary analyses predict different outcomes under suffixation and connected speech." }, { "name": "Laryngeal input-output analysis", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Proposed input category linked to observed output and the framework used to represent it", "why_it_matters": "Keeps descriptive observations separate from assumptions about underlying voicing features." }, { "name": "Closure or constriction voicing proportion", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Percentage of a specified consonantal interval showing periodic voicing", "why_it_matters": "Measures one phonetic dimension of devoicing when the relevant interval can be reliably identified." }, { "name": "Residual contrast cues", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Cue-specific differences, such as preceding-vowel duration, consonant duration or release timing in milliseconds", "why_it_matters": "Tests whether distinctions survive outside the presence or absence of consonantal voicing." }, { "name": "Neutralization assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Untested, evidence consistent with complete neutralization, residual distinction detected, or conflicting evidence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents categorical conclusions from exceeding the sensitivity and coverage of the evidence." }, { "name": "Conditioned application", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Observed application rate with a stated decision criterion, token count and conditioning context", "why_it_matters": "Makes variable application assessable without hiding how tokens were classified." } ], "affordances": [ "Determine whether an observed final consonant pattern supports a devoicing analysis.", "Compare competing syllable-, word- and phrase-boundary accounts against observed forms.", "Construct matched final and nonfinal comparisons that test laryngeal alternations.", "Evaluate complete-neutralization claims using acoustic and perceptual evidence.", "Generate context-specific pronunciation predictions with explicit limits and exceptions.", "Identify missing contrasts or controls before extending an analysis to another variety." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain final-obstruent devoicing with examples from languages such as German, Dutch or Russian.", "Describe where and how languages differ in applying it, citing linguistic sources." ], "must_not": [ "Present the process as universal or as a sign of careless speech.", "Mark learners' accents as wrong because of it without context.", "Invent language data to fit a claim.", "Use it to rank languages or their speakers." ], "requires_human": [ "Using a phonological judgement in a language test with consequences for a person." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Accent judgements can disadvantage learners in school, work and migration.", "Linguistic description should not be turned into a value judgement on speakers." ], "affected_parties": [ "Language learners", "Speakers of languages with the process" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; linguists describe it.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "Final-obstruent devoicing is studied in phonology and phonetics to explain how consonant voicing depends on position within words or syllables.", "It is relevant to pronunciation teaching, speech recognition and speech synthesis because written consonants may differ from their spoken realization.", "Analyses compare final consonants with related forms in other positions to establish whether a voicing contrast is neutralized." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Treating devoicing as universal can produce incorrect pronunciations or transcriptions for languages and dialects with different patterns.", "Assuming complete phonetic identity can erase residual acoustic differences and distort linguistic analysis.", "Speech systems that misinterpret predictable devoicing can confuse words and reduce recognition accuracy for affected speakers." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No standard, law or official classification directly regulates this linguistic process.", "recognition": "This phonological process has no intrinsic visual appearance and is identified through speech evidence and linguistic analysis." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q779384: final-obstruent devoicing", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q779384", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Final-obstruent devoicing", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final-obstruent_devoicing", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "obstruent-targets-and-contrast", "name": "Obstruent targets and contrast", "description": "Establish which consonants participate and what evidence makes the pattern a devoicing process.", "rationale": "A voiceless final consonant is insufficient evidence unless its relation to a relevant contrast or alternation is established.", "layers": [ { "id": "affected-segment-classes", "name": "Affected segment classes", "description": "Delimit the participating obstruents within the variety under study.", "findings": [ { "id": "participating-obstruents", "name": "Participating obstruents", "description": "Record the proposed target set, observed coverage and exclusions without assuming all obstruents behave alike.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which stops, fricatives or affricates show the proposed final devoicing pattern?", "kind": "definition", "id": "participating-obstruents-q01" }, { "text": "Which comparable obstruents fail to participate, and in which environments?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "participating-obstruents-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "input-contrast-evidence", "name": "Input contrast evidence", "description": "Connect final outputs to evidence for the categories claimed to undergo change.", "findings": [ { "id": "alternation-and-lexical-support", "name": "Alternation and lexical support", "description": "Separate observed final-nonfinal correspondences from assumptions about underlying representations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which related nonfinal forms or independently established contrasts support the proposed voiced input?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "alternation-and-lexical-support-q01" }, { "text": "Could the observed final consonant instead be lexically voiceless, and what evidence distinguishes the accounts?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "alternation-and-lexical-support-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "finality-and-prosodic-domain", "name": "Finality and prosodic domain", "description": "Identify the boundary and segmental conditions that license devoicing.", "rationale": "The meaning of final determines predictions for consonants inside words and across word boundaries.", "layers": [ { "id": "boundary-diagnostics", "name": "Boundary diagnostics", "description": "Test candidate syllabic, lexical and prosodic domains.", "findings": [ { "id": "triggering-boundary", "name": "Triggering boundary", "description": "Record the smallest supported boundary account and cases that distinguish it from alternatives.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does devoicing track syllable codas, word endings, prosodic-word endings or phrase endings?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "triggering-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Which forms separate these candidate domains rather than satisfying all of them at once?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "triggering-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "connected-speech-contexts", "name": "Connected-speech contexts", "description": "Examine following segments, pauses and possible changes to syllable affiliation.", "findings": [ { "id": "following-context-effects", "name": "Following-context effects", "description": "Distinguish sensitivity to final position from assimilation, pausal effects and resyllabification.", "questions": [ { "text": "What happens to the same word-final obstruent before a vowel, a voiced consonant, a voiceless consonant and a pause?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "following-context-effects-q01" }, { "text": "What independent evidence supports resyllabification or assimilation when either is used to explain an exception?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "following-context-effects-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "laryngeal-outcome-and-neutralization", "name": "Laryngeal outcome and neutralization", "description": "Characterize the output and assess whether the relevant contrast survives.", "rationale": "Decreased voicing, a phonological category change and complete neutralization require distinct evidential tests.", "layers": [ { "id": "phonetic-realization", "name": "Phonetic realization", "description": "Describe measurable laryngeal and temporal properties of final obstruents.", "findings": [ { "id": "devoicing-measurement", "name": "Devoicing measurement", "description": "Specify how consonantal voicing and associated cues are measured for each segment class.", "questions": [ { "text": "How are consonant boundaries and periodic voicing identified for stops, fricatives and affricates in the data?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "devoicing-measurement-q01" }, { "text": "Which acoustic or articulatory observations justify describing the output as devoiced?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "devoicing-measurement-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "contrast-survival", "name": "Contrast survival", "description": "Test whether categories that contrast elsewhere remain distinguishable in final position.", "findings": [ { "id": "complete-or-incomplete-neutralization", "name": "Complete or incomplete neutralization", "description": "Record acoustic and perceptual results separately, including uncertainty about undetected differences.", "questions": [ { "text": "Do matched final forms retain reliable differences in vowel duration, consonant duration, voicing or release properties?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "complete-or-incomplete-neutralization-q01" }, { "text": "Can listeners distinguish the proposed neutralized categories when lexical and contextual cues are controlled?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "complete-or-incomplete-neutralization-q02" }, { "text": "What precision and statistical sensitivity support the conclusion that any remaining difference is absent or negligible?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "complete-or-incomplete-neutralization-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "morphological-and-phonological-interactions", "name": "Morphological and phonological interactions", "description": "Track how inflection, derivation and interacting processes expose or alter final devoicing.", "rationale": "Alternations across related forms supply diagnostics and constrain how an agent predicts unseen forms.", "layers": [ { "id": "paradigm-alternations", "name": "Paradigm alternations", "description": "Compare related forms that place the relevant obstruent in different positions.", "findings": [ { "id": "final-nonfinal-correspondence", "name": "Final-nonfinal correspondence", "description": "Record attested paradigmatic evidence and limits on generalization.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which inflected or derived forms place the same stem-final obstruent in a nonfinal environment, and how does its realization change?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "final-nonfinal-correspondence-q01" }, { "text": "Do compounds, affixes or particular morphological classes preserve unexpected devoicing or voicing?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "final-nonfinal-correspondence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interacting-processes", "name": "Interacting processes", "description": "Assess explanations involving assimilation, syllabification or other changes to the environment.", "findings": [ { "id": "interaction-and-prediction", "name": "Interaction and prediction", "description": "Represent competing analyses through their different observable predictions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Where do alternative orderings or constraint analyses predict different outcomes for final devoicing and neighboring-segment assimilation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "interaction-and-prediction-q01" }, { "text": "Which additional forms should an agent elicit to distinguish those predictions?", "kind": "action", "id": "interaction-and-prediction-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "variation-and-evidence-quality", "name": "Variation and evidence quality", "description": "Bound the analysis by population, speaking conditions and the evidence actually available.", "rationale": "A categorical description must not erase variable realizations or generalize beyond the sampled variety and contexts.", "layers": [ { "id": "speaker-and-task-conditioning", "name": "Speaker and task conditioning", "description": "Identify variation associated with speakers and production conditions.", "findings": [ { "id": "conditioned-devoicing-patterns", "name": "Conditioned devoicing patterns", "description": "Record application and cue distributions under specified speech conditions.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do devoicing and residual contrast vary across speakers, speaking rates, styles and prosodic prominence?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "conditioned-devoicing-patterns-q01" }, { "text": "Do reading tasks, spelling visibility or explicit attention to contrasts alter the observed pattern?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "conditioned-devoicing-patterns-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "attestation-and-inference-limits", "name": "Attestation and inference limits", "description": "Connect each language-specific conclusion to inspectable evidence and a stated coverage limit.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-backed-analysis", "name": "Evidence-backed analysis", "description": "Distinguish descriptive reports, analyzed recordings and theoretical interpretations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which consulted descriptions, recordings or experiments support each claim about final devoicing in this variety?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-backed-analysis-q01" }, { "text": "Which untested segment classes, boundaries or speaker groups prevent broader generalization?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "evidence-backed-analysis-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence would require revising the target set, triggering domain or neutralization assessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "evidence-backed-analysis-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "This is a phonological phenomenon, not a discipline or field of knowledge.", "The conditioning domain and affected obstruent classes must be established separately for each language and variety.", "Whether neutralization is phonetically complete is an empirical question; reported residual differences can depend on speakers and experimental methods." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing 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": [ "Word-final obstruent devoicing", "Syllable-final obstruent devoicing" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing 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": [ "Explaining pronunciation alternations between related word forms, such as German Rad with final [t] and Räder with [d].", "Teaching pronunciation and interpreting spelling-pronunciation differences.", "Representing context-dependent pronunciations in speech recognition and speech synthesis.", "Testing theories of phonological neutralization and its phonetic realization." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing 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": "Proportion of an obstruent's duration containing vocal-fold vibration", "typical_range": "Language-, speaker-, and context-dependent; no universal diagnostic threshold", "unit": "%" }, { "quantity": "Duration of the preceding vowel", "typical_range": "Language- and context-dependent; may retain cues to the underlying voicing distinction", "unit": "ms" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing 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": [ "Assuming that phonological neutralization necessarily produces acoustically identical outputs.", "Confusing categorical final devoicing with gradient phonetic loss of voicing.", "Treating spelling as a direct record of surface pronunciation.", "Applying a word-final rule to every syllable-final position without language-specific evidence.", "Ignoring the effects of following sounds, prosodic boundaries, and speech style." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing 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": [ "German and Dutch exhibit final obstruent devoicing, although their distributions and phonetic realizations require separate descriptions.", "Russian and Polish exhibit final devoicing alongside consonant-cluster voicing assimilation; connected-speech patterns require language- and variety-specific treatment.", "English can show partial phonetic devoicing of final voiced obstruents while preserving a contrast through other acoustic cues." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing 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": "Voicing assimilation", "difference": "Assimilation conditions an obstruent's voicing on neighbouring sounds; final devoicing is conditioned by a final structural position." }, { "name": "Phonetic devoicing", "difference": "Phonetic devoicing is a reduction or absence of vocal-fold vibration and does not by itself establish a categorical phonological rule." }, { "name": "Incomplete neutralization", "difference": "Incomplete neutralization is the retention of measurable differences between categories expected to merge; it can occur in the realization of final devoicing." }, { "name": "Final fortition", "difference": "Final fortition concerns strengthening in final position, potentially involving several articulatory properties; final devoicing specifically concerns the voicing distinction." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of final-obstruent devoicing this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which researched language varieties should anchor the model's worked examples and counterexamples?", "How should the model compare analyses using voicing features with analyses using other laryngeal representations without assuming their equivalence?", "What evidence threshold should distinguish complete neutralization from a residual contrast too small for the available study to detect?", "Which diagnostics most reliably separate word-final, syllable-final and phrase-final conditioning in the selected varieties?", "How should cases with no attested nonfinal alternant be classified when the proposed underlying laryngeal category remains uncertain?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 29 } }