info-tech-canon/workplans/INFO-WP-0029-emission-cadence-adoption.md

---
id: INFO-WP-0029
type: workplan
title: "Seek independent Emission Cadence adoption evidence"
domain: infotech
repo: info-tech-canon
status: active
owner: claude
topic_slug: canon-optimization
created: "2026-09-21"
updated: "2026-09-21"
flavor: coordination
state_hub_workstream_id: "d743e220-9d2d-52d8-8df3-880805269639"
---

# Emission Cadence adoption

INFO-DEC-2026-002 split the promotion gate and moved the standard to candidate,
which asserts a specified contract and no adoption. This workplan pursues the
other half: the evidence the stable level requires. Authorized by the operator
on 2026-09-21, which lifts the restriction INFO-WP-0019-T06 carried against
outward messages.

Success is not "two declarations arrive". Success is learning whether the
contract survives someone implementing it. A recorded incompatibility closes
this workplan as usefully as a clean adoption does.

## Publish what a source owner needs

```task
id: INFO-WP-0029-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "c5d6422b-53a2-597a-a554-52741d4ae146"
```

`docs/emission-cadence-adoption.md` states what a source owner supplies — a
declaration they own, valid against the schema, pinned to the contract digest —
and what it does not ask for: no deployment, no runtime proof, no conformance
claim. It names the validate command, both declared forms, the separate observer
role, and says plainly that the contract has never been implemented and that
reporting where it does not fit is a successful outcome.

The ask points at this page rather than restating itself in every message, so
what is being asked cannot drift between recipients.

## Ask net-kingdom, the origin owner

```task
id: INFO-WP-0029-T02
status: progress
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "845c27d1-5b66-5317-8abb-0a62eb0d9638"
```

The contract was assimilated from the King's Guard taxonomy and the evidence
classes remain NetKingdom-owned, so net-kingdom is the one party with a
pre-existing stake in being able to read silence. It is also the party most
likely to find the contract's real gaps, since it wrote the problem statement.

Ask for one source-owned declaration for an event class it already emits.
Waiting for a reply is expected; this task tracks the ask, not the answer.

Sent 2026-09-21 as State Hub message `3432a831-b25f-4717-ad8b-cb19fb1b6633`.

## Ask a second, independent source

```task
id: INFO-WP-0029-T03
status: progress
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "bb74cce9-12d8-58e2-ad44-c4aeb7b72f37"
```

The second declaration must come from an owner independent of net-kingdom.
`activity-core` is the candidate: it has a real, documented periodic emission
relationship into issue-core, so declared cadence is a question it already has
rather than one this request invents.

Sent 2026-09-21 as State Hub message `f1687805-3153-47c2-9744-05a2b1a6b8c1`.
Both messages name the brief rather than restating the ask, and both say that a
recorded incompatibility is a successful outcome.

## Record the evidence or the incompatibility

```task
id: INFO-WP-0029-T04
status: wait
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "4771ff59-264e-5917-a49d-8989b361b8ed"
```

Validate whatever arrives with `emission-review`, record it as adoption
evidence under `feedback/`, and write up what the attempt revealed. If a
declaration cannot be expressed in either form, that is the finding, and it goes
to the standard as a change proposal rather than being worked around in the
declaration.

## Observer result

```task
id: INFO-WP-0029-T05
status: wait
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "0486fcba-3609-50c5-b347-e7ee84f9f548"
```

One result from a party other than the declaring source, evaluating a declared
cadence against observed events. Blocked until at least one declaration exists,
since there is nothing to evaluate before then.

## Honest limit on what this can prove

Both candidate owners are repositories in the same operator's fleet. They are
independent of each other and of this repository in the sense the standard's
section 10 requires, and that is the sense the gate was written in — but they
are not independent of the operator. Evidence gathered here demonstrates that
the contract is implementable by parties who did not write it. It does not
demonstrate ecosystem adoption, and no promotion note may claim otherwise.