pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00235 · v1 · pith:B3RA744Unew · submitted 2026-05-29 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.AI· cs.CY· cs.MA

Civilizational Metamaterials: Engineering Coordination Under Capability Gradients and Structural Turbulence

David Orban This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 19:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.AIcs.CYcs.MA
keywords metamaterialsinstitutional coordinationphase transitionfreezing equilibriumprovenanceverification rategovernance engineeringAGI decision velocity
0
0 comments X

The pith

A metamaterial-inspired model shows institutional coordination undergoes a phase transition to a freezing equilibrium as AI accelerates decisions beyond verification capacity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that governance should be treated as an engineering discipline to handle the effects of artificial general intelligence on decision-making speed. It develops a quantitative framework using concepts from metamaterials to model how institutions maintain coordination when human verification cannot keep up with AI outputs. The central equation predicts a sharp switch between regimes where coordination failures heal themselves and where they destabilize the system into widespread inaction. This approach offers testable ways to design institutions that remain functional under capability gradients and turbulence.

Core claim

Civilizational coordination dynamics can be captured by a phenomenological constitutive law R_eff = β · (1-ρ) · (1-τ) · (1-γρτ) that exhibits a phase transition between self-healing and self-destabilizing behavior; when effective reproduction number exceeds one due to increased decision branching from AGI outpacing provenance and verification, rational agents enter a Freezing Equilibrium of inaction, and the framework provides a three-class provenance taxonomy to engineer against this outcome.

What carries the argument

The constitutive law R_eff = β · (1-ρ) · (1-τ) · (1-γρτ) that quantifies the effective reproduction of coordination failures or successes in institutions, with parameters for branching factor, provenance fidelity, verification rate, and their interaction.

If this is right

  • If R_eff remains below 1, institutions self-correct coordination issues without external intervention.
  • If R_eff exceeds 1, the system enters a self-amplifying destabilization leading to a stable but catastrophic equilibrium of inaction.
  • Improving provenance fidelity through cryptographic, institutional, or context-binding mechanisms can lower R_eff and shift the phase transition threshold.
  • Verification rate increases provide another control parameter to maintain self-healing regimes under higher decision velocities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Micro-level behavioral models of agents could be developed to derive the constitutive law from individual decisions rather than assuming it phenomenologically.
  • The framework might extend to non-governmental domains such as corporate governance or decentralized online platforms facing similar AI-induced velocity increases.
  • Empirical data from the proposed trial could allow calibration of the parameters β, ρ, τ, and γ for specific institutional contexts.

Load-bearing premise

The four-parameter phenomenological constitutive law accurately represents the macro-level coordination dynamics of real institutions without derivation from micro-level agent behaviors or empirical calibration.

What would settle it

Running the proposed 12-week stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in government grant review panels and measuring whether interventions on provenance and verification shift the observed coordination from destabilizing to self-healing behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00235 by David Orban.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Decision–Verification Gap. Decision velocity Vd diverges from verification velocity Cv as AGI accelerates delegation beyond human verification capacity. The shaded region represents unverified decisions accumulating faster than they can be processed. When Cver > E[Uact], the system reaches the Freezing Equilibrium. The decision–verification gap. Let Vd denote the rate at which AI systems gener￾ate deci… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Phase transition diagram for Reff in the (ρ, τ ) parameter space (β = 10, γ = 1). The bold contour marks the critical boundary Reff = 1; blue region is damped (self￾healing), red is turbulent (self-destabilizing). Three archetypal institutional positions are shown. Inset: boundary shift under varying branching factor β. behavior — rather than the magnitude of joint reduction relative to the sum of singleto… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial design. Twenty panels cross from con￾trol (gray) to scaffolded (blue) conditions at staggered intervals over 12 weeks. Tracer errors are injected at weeks 4, 8, and 12 to measure cascade propagation depth. 6.2 Proposed Pilot: Government Grant Review We propose a 12-week stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial across government R&D grant review panels, chosen because th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of the critical verification threshold τ ∗ to synergy specification under the correlated-detection interpretation. (A) Bar chart at β = 10, ρ = 0.5, γ = 1: the three forms yield τ ∗ ∈ [0.570, 0.766], all below the no-synergy baseline of 0.800. (B) τ ∗ as a function of ρ for each form. The spread defines the empirical question the pilot must answer. The qualitative design guidance is robust: all… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We argue that governance must transition from a normative discipline to an engineering discipline, and we develop a formal framework, inspired by the physics of metamaterials, to make this transition quantitative and testable. Artificial General Intelligence affects civilization primarily by increasing decision velocity while human verification capacity remains bounded. When the cost of validating AI-generated outputs exceeds the expected utility of acting on them, rational agents default to inaction: a stable but catastrophic Nash equilibrium we term the Freezing Equilibrium. Drawing on metamaterials, where emergent macro-properties arise from designed microstructure, we develop a phenomenological constitutive law for institutional coordination: $R_{\mathrm{eff}} = \beta \cdot (1-\rho) \cdot (1-\tau) \cdot (1-\gamma \rho \tau)$, where $\beta$ is the decision branching factor, $\rho$ is provenance fidelity, $\tau$ is the verification rate, and $\gamma \in [0,1]$ captures correlated-detection synergy between provenance and verification failures. The model predicts a sharp phase transition between self-healing ($R_{\mathrm{eff}} < 1$) and self-destabilizing ($R_{\mathrm{eff}} > 1$) regimes. We introduce a three-class provenance taxonomy: cryptographic, institutional, and context binding, and derive four falsifiable hypotheses with a proposed 12-week stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in government grant review panels. The framework bridges AI alignment theory and institutional design.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper argues that governance should be treated as an engineering discipline and develops a metamaterials-inspired phenomenological constitutive law for institutional coordination under AI-driven decision velocity: R_eff = β · (1-ρ) · (1-τ) · (1-γρτ). It predicts a sharp phase transition at R_eff = 1 between self-healing and self-destabilizing regimes, introduces a three-class provenance taxonomy (cryptographic, institutional, context binding), and derives four falsifiable hypotheses with a proposed 12-week stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in government grant review panels.

Significance. If the constitutive law receives micro-foundations or empirical calibration, the framework could provide a novel quantitative lens for engineering AI-resilient institutions, bridging alignment theory and institutional design. The explicit proposal of falsifiable hypotheses and a concrete trial design is a constructive element that could enable progress if the parameters prove operationalizable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (R_eff equation): The multiplicative constitutive law R_eff = β · (1-ρ) · (1-τ) · (1-γρτ) is introduced phenomenologically with no derivation from bounded-verification agent behaviors and no calibration or error analysis against existing institutional cases. The phase transition at R_eff = 1 is therefore an algebraic consequence of varying the defining parameters rather than an independent prediction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The four falsifiable hypotheses are stated to be derived from the model, yet the manuscript provides neither their explicit statements nor a demonstration that the proposed trial can test the coordination dynamics independently of the model's own parameter definitions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The interpretation of the synergy parameter γ and the provenance taxonomy would benefit from one additional sentence clarifying how they map to observable institutional quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the two major comments point by point below, acknowledging the phenomenological character of the model and the need for greater explicitness regarding the hypotheses and trial design.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (R_eff equation): The multiplicative constitutive law R_eff = β · (1-ρ) · (1-τ) · (1-γρτ) is introduced phenomenologically with no derivation from bounded-verification agent behaviors and no calibration or error analysis against existing institutional cases. The phase transition at R_eff = 1 is therefore an algebraic consequence of varying the defining parameters rather than an independent prediction.

    Authors: We agree that the constitutive law is presented phenomenologically without derivation from micro-level bounded-verification agent behaviors and without calibration or error analysis on historical cases. This approach is intentional: the framework is offered as an initial quantitative lens inspired by metamaterials to generate testable predictions rather than a fully micro-founded theory. The phase transition at R_eff = 1 is indeed an algebraic feature of the chosen multiplicative form, which encodes the compounding effects of provenance and verification failures. We will revise the abstract and the model section to state this phenomenological status and algebraic origin more explicitly, while retaining the emphasis on the law's utility for motivating the proposed trial. No new derivation or calibration will be added at this stage, as that would require a separate empirical project. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The four falsifiable hypotheses are stated to be derived from the model, yet the manuscript provides neither their explicit statements nor a demonstration that the proposed trial can test the coordination dynamics independently of the model's own parameter definitions.

    Authors: The full manuscript states the four hypotheses explicitly in Section 4 and maps each to observable coordination metrics (e.g., review completion rates, inter-rater agreement shifts, and downstream policy stability) within the stepped-wedge design. However, the abstract omits the explicit statements, and the independence of the trial from direct parameter fitting could be clarified further. We will revise the abstract to include concise versions of the four hypotheses and add a short subsection showing how the cluster-randomized stepped-wedge structure measures emergent coordination outcomes (such as changes in decision velocity and verification load) that are not tautological with the model's parameter definitions. This will strengthen the demonstration of falsifiability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Phase transition prediction reduces by construction to algebraic crossing of the posited constitutive law

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "we develop a phenomenological constitutive law for institutional coordination: $R_{\mathrm{eff}} = \beta \cdot (1-\rho) \cdot (1-\tau) \cdot (1-\gamma \rho \tau)$, where $\beta$ is the decision branching factor, $\rho$ is provenance fidelity, $\tau$ is the verification rate, and $\gamma \in [0,1]$ captures correlated-detection synergy between provenance and verification failures. The model predicts a sharp phase transition between self-healing ($R_{\mathrm{eff}} < 1$) and self-destabilizing ($R_{\mathrm{eff}} > 1$) regimes."

    The phase transition is defined exactly as the surface where the product equals 1. Declaring that the model 'predicts' self-healing vs. self-destabilizing regimes when parameters cross this surface is therefore equivalent to the definition of the expression; the transition location and sharpness are forced by the functional form adopted.

full rationale

The paper introduces R_eff as a phenomenological constitutive law and states that the model predicts a sharp phase transition at R_eff = 1. This transition is the direct algebraic consequence of setting the product expression to unity and varying its parameters; no separate derivation, micro-foundation, or external benchmark locates or sharpens the transition. The central claim therefore reduces to the modeling choice itself. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or other patterns are evident in the provided text. The circularity is partial because the law is explicitly labeled phenomenological rather than derived.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 3 invented entities

The model rests on an un-derived constitutive law, an analogy to metamaterials treated as a domain assumption, and the definition of a Nash equilibrium without supporting agent-based simulation or data. Four free parameters are introduced without calibration.

free parameters (4)
  • β
    decision branching factor; introduced to scale the model output
  • ρ
    provenance fidelity; introduced as a multiplicative term
  • τ
    verification rate; introduced as a multiplicative term
  • γ
    correlated-detection synergy parameter in [0,1]; introduced to capture interaction
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Institutions exhibit emergent macro-properties arising from designed microstructure analogous to metamaterials
    Invoked to justify the constitutive law form
  • domain assumption Rational agents default to inaction when validation cost exceeds expected utility, producing a stable Nash equilibrium
    Foundation for the Freezing Equilibrium claim
invented entities (3)
  • Freezing Equilibrium no independent evidence
    purpose: Stable but catastrophic Nash equilibrium of inaction
    Defined to name the predicted outcome
  • R_eff no independent evidence
    purpose: Effective coordination rate governing self-healing vs destabilizing regimes
    Central derived quantity
  • three-class provenance taxonomy (cryptographic, institutional, context binding) no independent evidence
    purpose: Classify sources of decision inputs
    Introduced to operationalize ρ

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5793 in / 1663 out tokens · 23586 ms · 2026-06-28T19:27:10.329714+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Concrete Problems in AI Safety

    Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., Mané, D.: Con- crete problems in AI safety (2016). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06565

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.06565 2016

  2. [2]

    Oxford University Press (1991)

    Anderson, R.M., May, R.M.: Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford University Press (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Internet-Draft draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22, Internet Engineering Task Force (2025)

    Birkholz, H., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Deshpande, Y., Lasker, S.: An architecture for trustworthy and transparent digital supply chains. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22, Internet Engineering Task Force (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models

    Bowman, S.R., et al.: Measuring progress on scalable oversight for large language models (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.03540

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.03540 2022

  5. [5]

    Widely circulated; archived at https://www.dnipogo.org/boyd/essence_of_ winning_losing.htm

    Boyd, J.R.: The essence of winning and losing (1996), unpublished brief- ing. Widely circulated; archived at https://www.dnipogo.org/boyd/essence_of_ winning_losing.htm

    1996

  6. [6]

    Nature464(7291), 1025–1028 (2010)

    Buldyrev, S.V., Parshani, R., Paul, G., Stanley, H.E., Havlin, S.: Catastrophic cas- cade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature464(7291), 1025–1028 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08932 18 D. Orban

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08932 2010

  7. [7]

    Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1983)

    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human–Computer Inter- action. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    Superintelligence paths, dangers, strategies

    Carlsmith, J.: Is power-seeking AI an existential risk? (2022). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2206.13353

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    I’m Not Sure, But

    Chan, A., Ezell, C., Kaufmann, M., Wei, K., Hammond, L., Bradley, H., Bluemke, E., Rajkumar, N., Krueger, D., Kolt, N., Heim, L., Anderljung, M.: Visibility into AIagents.In:Proceedingsofthe2024ACMConferenceonFairness,Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’24) (2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658948

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658948 2024

  10. [10]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences

    Christiano, P.F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Amodei, D., et al.: Deep rein- forcement learning from human preferences. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 30 (2017). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03741

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03741 2017

  11. [11]

    Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity: Content credentials: C2PA technical specification, version 2.0. Tech. rep. (2024), https://c2pa.org/ specifications/specifications/2.0/specs/C2PA_Specification.html

    2024

  12. [12]

    Critch, A., Krueger, D.: AI research considerations for human existential safety (ARCHES). Tech. rep., Center for Human-Compatible AI, UC Berkeley (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.04948

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.04948 2020

  13. [13]

    Dafoe, A.: AI governance: A research agenda. Tech. rep., Future of Humanity Insti- tute, University of Oxford (2018), https://web.archive.org/web/20250830194432/ https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/GovAI-Agenda.pdf, original host (fhi.ox.ac.uk) defunct; cited via Internet Archive snapshot

    work page arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    In: Sun, K

    Dobson, I.: Analyzing cascading failures and blackouts using utility outage data. In: Sun, K. (ed.) Cascading Failures in Power Grids. Springer, Cham (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48000-3_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48000-3_2 2024

  15. [15]

    Drexler, K.E.: Reframing superintelligence: Comprehensive AI services as general intelligence. Technical Report 2019-1, Future of Humanity Institute, Univer- sity of Oxford (2019), https://web.archive.org/web/20250905024310/https: //www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Reframing_Superintelligence_ FHI-TR-2019-1.1-1.pdf, original host (fhi.ox.ac.uk) defunct...

    work page arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2

    Gabriel,I.:Artificialintelligence,values,andalignment.MindsandMachines30(3), 411–437 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 2020

  17. [17]

    BMJ 350, h391 (2015)

    Hemming, K., Haines, T.P., Chilton, P.J., Girling, A.J., Lilford, R.J.: The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: Rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 350, h391 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h391

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj.h391 2015

  18. [18]

    An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks

    Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M., Woodside, T.: An overview of catastrophic AI risks (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.12001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.12001 2023

  19. [19]

    SIAM Review42(4), 599– 653 (2000)

    Hethcote, H.W.: The mathematics of infectious diseases. SIAM Review42(4), 599– 653 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144500371907

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036144500371907 2000

  20. [20]

    Multitask principal–agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design.The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7(Special Issue):24–52, 1991

    Holmström, B., Milgrom, P.: Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive con- tracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 7, 24–52 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24

    work page doi:10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24 1991

  21. [21]

    Contemporary Clinical Trials28(2), 182–191 (2007)

    Hussey, M.A., Hughes, J.P.: Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster random- ized trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials28(2), 182–191 (2007). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007 2007

  22. [22]

    International Organization for Standardization: ISO/IEC 42001:2023 information technology – artificial intelligence – management system. Tech. rep. (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    AI safety via debate

    Irving, G., Christiano, P., Amodei, D.: AI safety via debate (2018). https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.00899 Civilizational Metamaterials 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.00899 2018

  24. [24]

    Kittel, C., Siemens, C., et al.: AI agent orchestration patterns. Tech. rep., Microsoft Azure Architecture Center (2025), https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ azure/architecture/ai-ml/guide/ai-agent-design-patterns

    2025

  25. [25]

    Internet-Draft draft-narvaneni-agent-uri-02, IETF (2025)

    Narvaneni, Y.: The agent:// protocol – a URI-based framework for interoperable agents. Internet-Draft draft-narvaneni-agent-uri-02, IETF (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology: Security and privacy controls for information systems and organizations (NIST SP 800-53 rev. 5). Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Commerce (2020). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-53r5

    work page doi:10.6028/nist.sp.800-53r5 2020

  27. [27]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology: AI risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Commerce (2023), https://www. nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework

    2023

  28. [28]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST-AI-600-1, artificial intelli- gence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile. Tech. rep., U.S. Department of Commerce (2024). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI. 600-1, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.600-1.pdf

    work page doi:10.6028/nist.ai 2024

  29. [29]

    Research Report (2025), https://aiparadox.davidorban.com/

    Orban, D.: The AI paradox report: Early adopters love AI but fear its future. Research Report (2025), https://aiparadox.davidorban.com/

    2025

  30. [30]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.06398

    Orban, D.: Jolting technologies: Superexponential acceleration in AI capabilities and implications for AGI (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.06398

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.06398 2025

  31. [31]

    Cambridge University Press (1990)

    Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press (1990)

    1990

  32. [32]

    Yale University Press (1998)

    Scott, J.C.: Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press (1998)

    1998

  33. [33]

    OpenAI Research (2023), https://openai.com/ research/practices-for-governing-agentic-ai-systems

    Shavit, Y., Agarwal, S., Brundage, M., Adler, S., O’Keefe, C., Campbell, R., Lee, T., Mishkin, P., Eloundou, T., Heidecke, A., Lama, K., Krueger, D.: Practices for governing agentic AI systems. OpenAI Research (2023), https://openai.com/ research/practices-for-governing-agentic-ai-systems

    2023

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(9), 5766–5771 (2002)

    Watts, D.J.: A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(9), 5766–5771 (2002). https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.082090499

    2002

  35. [35]

    Archives of Internal Medicine164(6), 597–600 (2004)

    Wendler, D., Miller, F.G.: Deception in the pursuit of science. Archives of Internal Medicine164(6), 597–600 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.6.597

    work page doi:10.1001/archinte.164.6.597 2004

  36. [36]

    W3c rec- ommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (2024), https://www.w3.org/TR/ vc-data-model-2.0/

    World Wide Web Consortium: Verifiable credentials data model v2.0. W3c rec- ommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (2024), https://www.w3.org/TR/ vc-data-model-2.0/

    2024