{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T08:54:26Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 25.8, "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: 01a094d2-2cbc-7680-bd95-a0389a76ced2\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: criminal perpetrator\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: SOC.PER\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043:", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 70.3, "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: 01a094d2-2cb2-7a41-83df-78b74e2d151a\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: criminal perpetrator\nRegistry id: vr.tr.criminal-perpetrator\nPlane / domain: SOC / SOC.PER\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into thi" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T11:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:11:51+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-08T19:09:56+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q897438", "registryId": "vr.tr.criminal-perpetrator", "name": "criminal perpetrator", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "SOC.PER" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q897438/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.criminal-perpetrator", "name": "criminal perpetrator", "purpose": "Enable an agent to represent a person's attributed perpetration of a specific criminal act, assess the supporting evidence and procedural status, and determine which uses of that attribution are justified.", "definition": "A criminal perpetrator is a person who commits a criminal offence, a role defined in relation to particular conduct and applicable law rather than an occupation or an enduring personal identity.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the event-specific relationship between a person and attributed criminal conduct, including the alleged mode of participation, applicable legal context, evidential basis, adjudication history and limits on using the attribution; it does not treat criminal perpetration as a permanent personal identity.", "in_scope": [ "Attribution of particular criminal conduct to an identified or unresolved person", "Relationship between attributed conduct, offense elements and applicable jurisdiction", "Distinction between direct perpetration and other forms of participation", "Evidence, competing accounts and uncertainty supporting or challenging attribution", "Procedural and adjudicative status of each attribution", "Corrections, disclosure restrictions and permitted uses of perpetrator records" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The person's complete biography, demographic profile or general character", "The complete criminal incident, including every participant and consequence", "General offense definitions and comprehensive criminal-law doctrine", "Case administration, court operations and investigative procedures", "Sentence execution, detention conditions and rehabilitation programmes", "Occupational classifications, employment qualifications and professional licensing" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "The entry must connect a person to specified conduct or an incident; a free-standing label such as 'criminal' is insufficient.", "A suspect, arrested person or defendant is not automatically established as the perpetrator; procedural status and conduct attribution must be recorded separately.", "A conviction concerns specified charges and a particular decision; it must not silently establish responsibility for every alleged act in an incident.", "Presence at an incident, association with participants or membership in a group does not by itself specify a perpetrating act.", "Perpetration is a conduct-related role, not an occupation, enduring personality trait or prediction of future offending." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Person-to-incident attribution", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Person or unresolved actor linked to incident, attributed conduct and attribution source", "why_it_matters": "Makes the claim event-specific and prevents the label from becoming an unsupported personal identity." }, { "name": "Identity resolution", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unidentified, provisional match, corroborated match, disputed match, excluded match", "why_it_matters": "Separates uncertainty about who acted from uncertainty about what happened." }, { "name": "Attribution standing", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Alleged, admitted, judicially found, disputed, withdrawn; retain source-specific assertions", "why_it_matters": "Preserves differences between accusations, admissions and findings without forcing them into one confidence ladder." }, { "name": "Offense and governing context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Offense reference, jurisdiction, relevant legal version and conduct date", "why_it_matters": "Allows assessment against the legal context relevant to the particular conduct." }, { "name": "Attributed participation mode", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Direct, joint, through another person, other locally defined mode, disputed, unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Prevents different alleged contributions and legal forms of participation from being conflated." }, { "name": "Conduct and mental-element assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "For each applicable element: alleged, supported, contested, found, rejected, unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Keeps evidence of an act distinct from evidence concerning intent, knowledge or another required element." }, { "name": "Procedural disposition", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Source-documented status per charge and proceeding, including pending review and superseding decisions", "why_it_matters": "Prevents case-level summaries from obscuring charge-specific outcomes or later changes." }, { "name": "Use and disclosure conditions", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Purpose, audience, authority, restrictions, review date and unresolved conditions", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes possession of an attribution from justification for acting on or disclosing it." } ], "affordances": [ "Attach a qualified perpetration attribution to a specific person, act and incident.", "Compare alleged contributions with the applicable offense elements and participation categories.", "Trace each attribution to evidence and expose contradictory or exculpatory material.", "Produce summaries that distinguish allegations, admissions, findings and unresolved issues.", "Update affected records when identity matches, charges or judicial decisions change.", "Assess whether a proposed disclosure or consequential use has sufficient authority and support." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Report on offences and convictions from court records and reputable sources.", "Use neutral, legally accurate language such as suspect, accused or convicted person." ], "must_not": [ "Call a person a perpetrator before a conviction, or without evidence.", "Publish personal data about a perpetrator beyond what the law permits, such as spent convictions.", "Encourage vigilantism, harassment or violence against a person accused or convicted.", "Assist a person in committing or concealing an offence." ], "requires_human": [ "Reporting suspected crimes to authorities.", "Disclosing criminal records for employment or vetting." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "The presumption of innocence protects everyone.", "Labelling people by their offence harms rehabilitation and their families." ], "affected_parties": [ "Accused and convicted people", "Victims", "Families of both" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "The courts determine who is a perpetrator; criminal records are held by the state.", "master_systems": [ "Court records", "Criminal record registers" ] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "The term is used in criminal justice, criminology and accounts of specific offences to describe the person who committed the conduct.", "Records should distinguish established perpetration from an allegation, suspicion or charge and identify the relevant offence and jurisdiction.", "The attribution concerns particular conduct and should not be treated as an enduring personal identity." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, establishes fair trial guarantees and the presumption of innocence in Article 14.", "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, states the presumption of innocence for people charged with penal offences in Article 11." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Incorrect attribution can damage reputation and expose a person to discrimination or retaliation.", "Treating allegations as established facts can undermine the presumption of innocence and fair proceedings.", "Inferring perpetration from appearance or demographic characteristics can produce discriminatory decisions.", "Unnecessary disclosure of identifying information can threaten the safety and privacy of people connected to a case." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "Perpetration is a relationship between conduct, evidence and applicable law that cannot be identified from a person's appearance." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q897438: criminal perpetrator", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q897438", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-de", "title": "Wikipedia (de): Täter (Strafrecht)", "url": "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A4ter_%28Strafrecht%29", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "person-conduct-attribution", "name": "Person and conduct attribution", "description": "Establishes precisely who is being connected to which allegedly criminal conduct.", "rationale": "Perpetration is meaningful only through a bounded person-to-conduct relationship.", "layers": [ { "id": "actor-identification", "name": "Actor identification", "description": "Separates an observed or alleged actor from a resolved personal identity.", "findings": [ { "id": "identity-match-basis", "name": "Identity match basis", "description": "Record the basis and uncertainty of matching the attributed actor to a person.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which observations or records connect this person to the actor described in the incident?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "identity-match-basis-q01" }, { "text": "What alternative identities, mistaken matches or unresolved aliases remain?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "identity-match-basis-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "attributed-act", "name": "Attributed act", "description": "Bounds the particular action or omission attributed to the person.", "findings": [ { "id": "conduct-specificity", "name": "Conduct specificity", "description": "Identify the person's attributed contribution with its temporal and incident boundaries.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exactly is this person alleged or found to have done or omitted, and in which incident?", "kind": "definition", "id": "conduct-specificity-q01" }, { "text": "What distinguishes that conduct from mere presence, association or another participant's actions?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conduct-specificity-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "offense-and-participation", "name": "Offense and participation", "description": "Connects attributed conduct to the relevant offense and form of participation.", "rationale": "A harmful act, a criminal offense and perpetration of that offense are separate assessments.", "layers": [ { "id": "governing-offense", "name": "Governing offense", "description": "Identifies the legal context and elements against which conduct is assessed.", "findings": [ { "id": "offense-element-mapping", "name": "Offense element mapping", "description": "Map attributed conduct to a sourced offense definition without assuming that every element is established.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which jurisdiction, offense provision and legal version are asserted to govern the conduct?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "offense-element-mapping-q01" }, { "text": "Which required elements are supported, contested or unresolved for this person?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "offense-element-mapping-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "participation-and-responsibility", "name": "Participation and responsibility", "description": "Distinguishes the person's alleged contribution from the basis for attributing criminal responsibility.", "findings": [ { "id": "participation-mode-and-qualifications", "name": "Participation mode and qualifications", "description": "Record the asserted participation mode and unresolved matters affecting responsibility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Under the applicable framework, is the person described as a direct perpetrator, joint perpetrator or another kind of participant?", "kind": "definition", "id": "participation-mode-and-qualifications-q01" }, { "text": "Which questions about mental elements, capacity, defenses or exclusions could change the attribution of responsibility?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "participation-mode-and-qualifications-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-competing-accounts", "name": "Evidence and competing accounts", "description": "Preserves the grounds for attribution and the material that challenges them.", "rationale": "An accusation, repeated report or admission must remain distinguishable from independently supported findings.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance", "description": "Tracks who made each claim and what evidence it actually rests on.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-source-chain", "name": "Attribution source chain", "description": "Connect each material assertion to its originating source and any intervening reports.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who first attributed this conduct to the person, when, and on what stated basis?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-source-chain-q01" }, { "text": "Which accounts supply independent evidence, and which merely repeat the same allegation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-source-chain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "contestation-and-gaps", "name": "Contestation and gaps", "description": "Keeps contradictory evidence and missing information visible.", "findings": [ { "id": "alternative-account-assessment", "name": "Alternative account assessment", "description": "Represent challenges to identity, conduct and responsibility as separate issues.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence challenges the identity match, attributed act or asserted responsibility?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "alternative-account-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence could resolve the central disagreement, and who is authorized to obtain it?", "kind": "action", "id": "alternative-account-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "proceedings-and-decisions", "name": "Proceedings and decisions", "description": "Tracks procedural events and authoritative decisions without substituting them for conduct-specific analysis.", "rationale": "Different allegations concerning one person can have different outcomes and review histories.", "layers": [ { "id": "charge-specific-status", "name": "Charge-specific status", "description": "Records the procedural position of each relevant allegation or charge.", "findings": [ { "id": "status-without-inference", "name": "Status without inference", "description": "Keep investigation, accusation, charging and adjudication distinct.", "questions": [ { "text": "What is the documented procedural status of each allegation or charge, as of which date?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "status-without-inference-q01" }, { "text": "Which perpetration claims remain unsupported by the procedural event being cited?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "status-without-inference-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "decision-scope-and-review", "name": "Decision scope and review", "description": "Captures what a decision resolves and how later proceedings affect it.", "findings": [ { "id": "operative-decision", "name": "Operative decision", "description": "Record the decision's precise scope, review status and relationship to earlier decisions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which acts, charges and responsibility questions did the decision actually resolve?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "operative-decision-q01" }, { "text": "Has a later decision, appeal or reopening altered the attribution, and which record supports that change?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "operative-decision-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "attribution-use-and-correction", "name": "Attribution use and correction", "description": "Controls how the attribution is expressed, shared, acted upon and repaired.", "rationale": "A criminal-perpetrator label can outlive its evidential basis and affect people beyond the underlying case.", "layers": [ { "id": "qualified-use", "name": "Qualified use", "description": "Assesses proposed uses against the record's support, purpose and applicable restrictions.", "findings": [ { "id": "use-specific-justification", "name": "Use-specific justification", "description": "Require explicit justification for disclosure or consequential action based on an attribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "What proposed action or disclosure would rely on this attribution, and what authority and conditions govern it?", "kind": "action", "id": "use-specific-justification-q01" }, { "text": "What wording accurately communicates the attribution's source, status, scope and unresolved disputes?", "kind": "action", "id": "use-specific-justification-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "correction-and-propagation", "name": "Correction and propagation", "description": "Ensures revised attributions affect summaries and downstream uses.", "findings": [ { "id": "changed-attribution-response", "name": "Changed attribution response", "description": "Identify records and decisions requiring review after an attribution changes.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which linked summaries or uses depend on an identity match, allegation or decision that has changed?", "kind": "relation", "id": "changed-attribution-response-q01" }, { "text": "What correction, restriction or removal is required, and how will its completion be verified?", "kind": "action", "id": "changed-attribution-response-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 was recorded; this description assumes a human participant in a criminal offence.", "The listed kinds are recognised legal distinctions but do not form a universal classification.", "This is recall without source consultation; jurisdiction-specific terminology and legal scope require verification." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator 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": [ "Direct perpetrator", "Joint perpetrator", "Indirect perpetrator" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator 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": [ "National criminal codes and other offence-creating legislation, enacted by the relevant legislature, define offences and forms of criminal responsibility.", "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly: Article 14 provides fair-trial guarantees and the presumption of innocence.", "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by a diplomatic conference of states: Article 25 addresses individual criminal responsibility for crimes within the Court's jurisdiction." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator 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": [ "Describing responsibility for an offence in criminal-law analysis.", "Studying offending patterns and repeat offending in criminology.", "Recording offender-victim relationships in crime statistics.", "Distinguishing forms of participation in offences involving multiple people." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator 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": [ "Treating an allegation, arrest or charge as proof that a person committed an offence.", "Conflating commission of prohibited conduct with established criminal liability despite possible defences or exclusions.", "Treating perpetration as an occupation, diagnosis or fixed personal characteristic.", "Applying one jurisdiction's categories of perpetration and complicity universally.", "Using recorded or convicted offenders as an unbiased representation of everyone who commits offences." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator 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": [ "Jurisdictions differ in their treatment of principals, joint perpetrators, indirect perpetrators and accomplices.", "The same conduct may be criminal in one jurisdiction or period and lawful in another.", "Minimum ages of criminal responsibility and rules governing corporate criminal liability vary by jurisdiction." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator 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": "Suspect", "difference": "A suspect is believed or investigated to have committed an offence; suspicion does not establish perpetration." }, { "name": "Defendant", "difference": "A defendant has a procedural position in a case, which does not establish that the person committed the alleged offence." }, { "name": "Convicted person", "difference": "A convicted person has a formal adjudicative status; perpetrator describes commission of an offence, and the categories need not coincide." }, { "name": "Accomplice", "difference": "An accomplice assists or encourages an offence; whether this constitutes perpetration or a separate form of participation depends on applicable law." }, { "name": "Offender", "difference": "Often a synonym, although some institutional uses restrict it to people with an established criminal-justice status." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of criminal perpetrator this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does the registry intend 'criminal perpetrator' to cover natural persons only, or also organizations capable of criminal responsibility under some legal frameworks?", "Should the registry term denote actual perpetration while this model represents qualified claims about it, or does the registry explicitly include alleged perpetrators?", "Which jurisdiction-specific participation categories belong within perpetrator scope, and which require links to neighboring accomplice or accessory models?", "Which authoritative sources and review rules should govern disputed identities, conflicting decisions and attribution updates?", "What jurisdiction- and purpose-specific restrictions apply to records involving children, sealed proceedings, expungement or public disclosure?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }