{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-06T21:53:50Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "missingProviders": [ "Grok" ], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": null, "turns": null, "seconds": 2.3, "error": "Error: Internal error: {\n \"message\": \"API error (status 402 Payment Required): Grok Build usage balance exhausted\",\n \"http_status\": 402\n}", "retried": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 74.0, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\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: 01a078b5-838e-7693-9058-b79f9a3fb4da\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Cold War\nRegistry id: vr.tr.cold-war\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA Vercy" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T11:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:00:52+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:33+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q8683", "registryId": "vr.tr.cold-war", "name": "Cold War", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q8683/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.cold-war", "name": "Cold War", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to identify the Cold War as a historically bounded system of rivalry, assess its changing configuration and escalation risks, and determine which interpretations or responses the recorded evidence supports.", "definition": "", "scope_statement": "This model owns the Cold War's system-level configuration, competing alignments, modes of confrontation, restraints on escalation, and historical transitions; whether the registry intends the specific historical Cold War or a reusable class of cold wars remains to be confirmed.", "in_scope": [ "Competing power centres, their alignments, and the limits of bloc cohesion", "Connections among military, ideological, economic, technological, and intelligence competition", "Relationships between the overarching rivalry and particular regional conflicts", "Nuclear deterrence, crisis escalation, communication, and negotiated restraint", "Evidence for period boundaries, changes in rivalry, and its termination" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Full operational histories of individual wars, campaigns, or military units", "Complete institutional models of states, alliances, and international organisations", "Technical specifications and operating procedures for weapons systems", "Complete biographies of leaders, diplomats, and intelligence personnel", "Standalone models of ideologies, economic systems, or political regimes", "Post-Cold War developments without an explicit relationship to the rivalry" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Test whether the referent is the named historical Cold War or merely a later rivalry described by analogy; shared rhetoric alone does not establish identity.", "Test for sustained rivalry across several arenas rather than a single diplomatic dispute, arms race, or regional war.", "Distinguish avoidance of sustained direct war between principal rivals from absence of warfare: regional fighting and indirect intervention must remain visible.", "Test whether a regional conflict's connection to the wider rivalry is evidenced rather than inferred solely from its dates or participants.", "Distinguish temporary accommodation within continuing rivalry from a change that dismantles the rivalry's organising relationships." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Referent type", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named historical Cold War | generic rivalry type | unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether the agent is describing one historical phenomenon or classifying multiple instances." }, { "name": "Temporal boundary", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Candidate start and end dates or intervals, each with a criterion and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an assumed chronology from silently deciding which events belong." }, { "name": "Principal rivalry configuration", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Time-qualified relationships among principal rivals, allies, partners, and non-aligned actors", "why_it_matters": "Makes changes in alignment and autonomy visible without treating blocs as single actors." }, { "name": "Arena-specific competitive intensity", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Restrained | active | acute | unknown, assessed separately by arena and interval", "why_it_matters": "Allows diplomatic accommodation and intensified competition elsewhere to coexist." }, { "name": "Direct hostilities between principal rivals", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "None evidenced | isolated encounter | limited hostilities | sustained war | disputed", "why_it_matters": "Tests the boundary between cold rivalry and direct war without erasing exceptional encounters." }, { "name": "Regional conflict linkage", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Diplomatic backing | finance | arms supply | advisory support | operational involvement | disputed linkage", "why_it_matters": "Separates documented involvement from blanket classification of conflicts as proxies." }, { "name": "Perceived deterrence stability", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Stable | strained | acute concern | contested | unknown, attributed to an actor and date", "why_it_matters": "Keeps contemporary perceptions distinct from retrospective judgments of actual danger." }, { "name": "Restraint mechanism status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Proposed | agreed | operating | impaired | suspended | ended | unknown", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes the existence of an agreement or communication channel from its practical operation." }, { "name": "Historical interpretation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Claim linked to its author, evidence, time of assessment, competing accounts, and confidence", "why_it_matters": "Supports judgments about causation and turning points without presenting disputed interpretations as settled facts." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether an event belongs to the Cold War and explain the strength and limits of that classification.", "Compare phases of rivalry across arenas without forcing them onto a single intensity scale.", "Trace alignment changes, external intervention, and local agency through time.", "Reconstruct crisis decision points using information available to actors at the time.", "Evaluate historically available options for restraint against recorded commitments, capabilities, and communication channels.", "Identify conflicting interpretations and specify the evidence needed to resolve or narrow them." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain the Cold War's alignments, crises and phases using a range of sources.", "Distinguish the historical Cold War from later uses of the term." ], "must_not": [ "Present one side's propaganda as neutral history.", "Deny or minimize repression, proxy wars or atrocities from either bloc.", "Use the label to stir hostility toward people from former bloc countries.", "Invent documents, quotations or secret events." ], "requires_human": [ "Publishing archival material that names individuals as informants or agents." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Proxy wars of the period killed millions in countries outside the main powers.", "Records of surveillance and informers still affect living people." ], "affected_parties": [ "Victims of repression and proxy wars", "People named in archives", "Students" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody: a historical period; state archives hold the records.", "master_systems": [ "National archives of the states involved" ] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Nuclear brinkmanship and near-miss incidents during crises.", "Misinformation that reuses Cold War narratives today." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "The Cold War is studied in history, international relations, security studies and accounts of twentieth-century social and political change.", "The term connects rivalry between the Soviet Union, the United States and their allies with nuclear competition, ideological conflict, proxy wars and diplomacy.", "The 1947-1991 period is a common framing, although historians debate its boundaries and regional trajectories." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the United Nations Conference on International Organization, established rules concerning force and peaceful dispute settlement that applied to member states during the rivalry." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "The Cold War is a historical relationship and period that cannot be identified through visual cues alone." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q8683: Cold War", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8683", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Cold War", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "rivalry-and-alignment", "name": "Rivalry and alignment", "description": "The actors and relationships that make the Cold War a connected international rivalry.", "rationale": "The model must recognise the organising rivalry while preserving divisions within blocs and the agency of actors outside them.", "layers": [ { "id": "principal-antagonism", "name": "Principal antagonism", "description": "The identity, stakes, and perceived incompatibilities of the central rivalry.", "findings": [ { "id": "organising-rivalry", "name": "Organising rivalry", "description": "Record which antagonistic relationships organise the Cold War in a given interval and what participants believe is at stake.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which actors constitute the principal rivalry during this interval, and what makes their antagonism system-defining?", "kind": "definition", "id": "organising-rivalry-q01" }, { "text": "Which contemporary records establish their stated objectives, threat perceptions, and perceived incompatibilities?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "organising-rivalry-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "bloc-cohesion-and-autonomy", "name": "Bloc cohesion and autonomy", "description": "Formal alignment, practical cooperation, internal divisions, and independent positioning.", "findings": [ { "id": "alignment-without-assumed-control", "name": "Alignment without assumed control", "description": "Record alliance ties and dependence separately from obedience, shared ideology, or agreement on particular actions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Where do formal membership, material dependence, ideological affinity, and actual policy cooperation diverge?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "alignment-without-assumed-control-q01" }, { "text": "When should an actor be treated as an autonomous participant, a non-aligned actor, or a rival within an apparent bloc?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "alignment-without-assumed-control-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "arenas-of-systemic-competition", "name": "Arenas of systemic competition", "description": "The means through which rivals seek security, influence, legitimacy, and strategic advantage.", "rationale": "Cold War competition cannot be recognised or assessed through military confrontation alone.", "layers": [ { "id": "ideology-and-legitimacy", "name": "Ideology and legitimacy", "description": "Competing claims about political order and efforts to shape audiences' beliefs.", "findings": [ { "id": "legitimacy-contests", "name": "Legitimacy contests", "description": "Record ideological claims, intended audiences, channels of influence, and evidence of reception.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which claims about political or social order are being contested, and which audiences are targeted?", "kind": "definition", "id": "legitimacy-contests-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes an influence campaign's intended effect from its observed reception?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "legitimacy-contests-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "economic-and-technological-leverage", "name": "Economic and technological leverage", "description": "Competition through resources, development offers, trade restrictions, and technological achievement.", "findings": [ { "id": "resources-as-rivalry-instruments", "name": "Resources as rivalry instruments", "description": "Record when economic or technological activities serve strategic competition and how recipients respond.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence connects a particular aid programme, restriction, or technological programme to Cold War objectives?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "resources-as-rivalry-instruments-q01" }, { "text": "Which changes in dependence, access, capability, or prestige can be observed without assuming that expenditure produced influence?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "resources-as-rivalry-instruments-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "intelligence-and-covert-competition", "name": "Intelligence and covert competition", "description": "Hidden information gathering and intervention, including the limits of attribution.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-covert-involvement", "name": "Attributed covert involvement", "description": "Record alleged and established covert involvement separately, with the evidence and disclosure history supporting each attribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which records substantiate sponsorship, authorisation, participation, and intended purpose rather than merely alleging involvement?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-covert-involvement-q01" }, { "text": "What may the agent conclude or compare when attribution remains disputed or relevant archives remain inaccessible?", "kind": "action", "id": "attributed-covert-involvement-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "regional-conflict-and-local-agency", "name": "Regional conflict and local agency", "description": "How local struggles connect to the wider rivalry without becoming reducible to it.", "rationale": "The model must explain indirect confrontation while avoiding the assumption that external sponsors originate or control every regional conflict.", "layers": [ { "id": "conflict-linkage", "name": "Conflict linkage", "description": "The mechanisms connecting a particular conflict to Cold War competition.", "findings": [ { "id": "qualified-proxy-relationship", "name": "Qualified proxy relationship", "description": "Record the type, timing, and extent of outside involvement before applying a proxy-war interpretation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What assistance or intervention connects this conflict to the principal rivalry, and during which intervals?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "qualified-proxy-relationship-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence support a proxy relationship, direct intervention, opportunistic support, or a weaker association?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "qualified-proxy-relationship-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "local-objectives-and-feedback", "name": "Local objectives and feedback", "description": "Local goals, bargaining power, and the effects of regional events on principal rivals.", "findings": [ { "id": "sponsor-partner-divergence", "name": "Sponsor-partner divergence", "description": "Record where local actors pursue independent objectives or alter the choices available to external supporters.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which local objectives predate, exceed, or contradict the objectives of external supporters?", "kind": "definition", "id": "sponsor-partner-divergence-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows local actors redirecting assistance, resisting sponsor pressure, or drawing sponsors further into confrontation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "sponsor-partner-divergence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "deterrence-crises-and-restraint", "name": "Deterrence, crises, and restraint", "description": "The relationship between military threats, perceived vulnerability, escalation, and mechanisms for limiting confrontation.", "rationale": "A cold rivalry requires explicit treatment of how direct war is threatened, avoided, or approached; absence of war alone cannot establish successful deterrence.", "layers": [ { "id": "deterrence-posture", "name": "Deterrence posture", "description": "Capabilities, commitments, and beliefs relevant to discouraging attack or coercion.", "findings": [ { "id": "capability-credibility-and-perception", "name": "Capability, credibility, and perception", "description": "Record military capability separately from communicated threats and an opponent's assessment of their credibility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which capabilities and commitments underpin deterrence claims, and how are they understood by the opposing actors?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "capability-credibility-and-perception-q01" }, { "text": "Which sources distinguish contemporary beliefs about vulnerability from later reconstructions of the military balance?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "capability-credibility-and-perception-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "crisis-control", "name": "Crisis control", "description": "Decision points at which confrontation may intensify or be contained.", "findings": [ { "id": "escalation-and-off-ramps", "name": "Escalation and off-ramps", "description": "Record crisis triggers, signals, misperceptions, decision constraints, and available routes to restraint.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which developments change the risk of direct or nuclear war, and what did each decision-maker know at that point?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "escalation-and-off-ramps-q01" }, { "text": "Which communication channels, reciprocal steps, agreements, or concessions were available to reduce escalation, and under what conditions?", "kind": "action", "id": "escalation-and-off-ramps-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence supports attributing restraint to deterrence, diplomacy, operational limits, or other causes?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "escalation-and-off-ramps-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "historical-boundaries-and-transformation", "name": "Historical boundaries and transformation", "description": "The criteria for the Cold War's emergence, changing phases, and ending.", "rationale": "The agent needs defensible boundaries and transition criteria to avoid treating a familiar date range or a single narrative as the phenomenon itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "onset-and-periodisation", "name": "Onset and periodisation", "description": "Alternative starting criteria and evidence for changes within the rivalry.", "findings": [ { "id": "criterion-based-phases", "name": "Criterion-based phases", "description": "Record candidate onset dates and phases alongside the relationships or behaviours that justify them.", "questions": [ { "text": "What change marks the emergence of the Cold War under each proposed starting criterion?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "criterion-based-phases-q01" }, { "text": "Which indicators distinguish intensified confrontation, accommodation, and renewed rivalry, including differences among regions and arenas?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "criterion-based-phases-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "termination-and-continuity", "name": "Termination and continuity", "description": "The disappearance or transformation of organising antagonisms and the persistence of their effects.", "findings": [ { "id": "ending-versus-persistent-effects", "name": "Ending versus persistent effects", "description": "Record competing termination criteria and distinguish continued rivalry from institutions, conflicts, or dependencies that outlast it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which relationships or practices must cease or change for the Cold War to count as ended, and when is each criterion met?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "ending-versus-persistent-effects-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes a continuing Cold War relationship from a later consequence or a newly constituted rivalry?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "ending-versus-persistent-effects-q02" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does vr.tr.cold-war denote the specific historical Cold War, a general class of rivalry, or both, and does an existing world model already own that referent?", "Which onset and termination criteria should anchor the model, and how should competing regional chronologies be represented?", "What evidentiary threshold justifies describing a regional conflict as a proxy war without obscuring local agency?", "How can escalation risk and deterrence effects be assessed when contemporary perceptions, available capabilities, and retrospective evidence disagree?", "Which non-aligned, smaller-state, and local perspectives are necessary to test a framework initially organised around principal rivals?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 11, "findings": 11, "questions": 23 } }