5OI: Zeroth Order Ignorance
The question and its answer

Zeroth Order Ignorance (0OI)—Lack of Ignorance:
I provably know something. 

With 0OI I have knowledge—I have the answer[1].  

Of course, this means I must also have any associated questions and the provably criterion means I must also have the ability (knowledge, skill, and opportunity),  to demonstrate or prove I do have the answer.  A music example: I may assert that I know how to play Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata on the piano.  There are several layers to this assertion:

(a) I presumably know what this piece of music sounds like (depending on my music ability);

(b) I can play piano sufficiently well;

(c) I can read some form or musical notation and/or I have memorized the piece sufficiently well enough to play it.

(d) There is some playing standard I can achieve that shows that I know how to play it.[2]

Note that these layers reference the knowledge of the piece, the process of proving it (by playing), and the benchmark (whatever is considered the “playing standard”).  It is quite possible for someone to have part of these qualifications (perhaps by being able to read the score) but not have other parts (not having the manual dexterity to be able physically play the piece sufficiently well).

There are subtler and additional levels of knowledge operating of course.  Knowledge of the domain of music, knowledge of the instrument, ability to move one’s fingers, etc.  This occurs whenever we have knowledge—it is always embedded in other forms, contexts, and abstraction levels of knowledge.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  As an example, since it has been a hobby of mine for a long time, I have a certain amount of 0OI of the activity of sailing which, given a boat and a lake, I would be happy to demonstrate.

[2] The (d) "playing standard" is, of course, the additional  knowledge source that is always required to qualify knowledge.   This was already discussed here.  There is some overlap between (b) and (d)—one could reasonably argue that "...sufficiently well" represents a playing standard.  However, (b) references the general ability to play the instrument (a "higher" context level) whereas (d) is more closely aligned with the piece.  I might be able to play "Chopsticks" just fine, but cannot play Moonlight Sonata, so I could pass (b) but not (d).   These represent two levels of knowledge with the (b) "play piano" being a context for the (d) "playing standard (for Moonlight Sonata)".   All knowledge resides within a seamless hierarchy of knowledge context levels.  To this example, we could add additional contexts of (for instance) knowing how to move one's fingers, a sufficiently capable sense of time, and many others.