info-tech-canon/feedback/2026-09-21-net-kingdom-emission-cadence-declaration.md

---
id: feedback/2026-09-21-net-kingdom-emission-cadence-declaration
type: consumer-feedback
status: reviewed
date: "2026-09-21"
consumer: net-kingdom
consumer_domain: infotech
canon_version: "0.7.0"
artifacts:
  - standard/emission-cadence
related_demand:
  - demand/EmissionActivityScope.md
related_workplan:
  - INFO-WP-0029
spawned_demand:
  - demand/EmissionActivityScope.md
spawned_workplan: []
---

# Feedback: first source-owned Emission Cadence declaration (local-identity audit log)

**Consumer:** net-kingdom
**Canon version used:** 0.7.0; Emission Cadence document 0.2.0, wire schema 0.1
**Artifacts exercised:** `infospace/schemas/emission-cadence.schema.yaml`,
`standards/emission-cadence/InfoTechCanonEmissionCadenceStandard.md`
**Related demand:** `demand/EmissionActivityScope.md`

Source: net-kingdom's reply to INFO-WP-0029-T02 (State Hub message
`3b2db043-b910-4552-930f-65d87b475f3b`, thread `3432a831`), and the files it
published at net-kingdom commit `116643f`:
`local-identity/emission-cadence.yaml` and
`local-identity/emission-cadence-findings.md`. The consumer's own findings file
is the authoritative account. The sections below summarize it and do not
restate it.

---

## Consumer purpose

Declare the intended cadence of the local-identity audit log (`serve/token`
issuance, `revoke-token`) as load-bearing security evidence, so that an
observer could read silence in that stream.

## Hits

- `heartbeat-or-reconciliation` with a `reconciliation` block. This expressed
  a local-count versus observed-count comparison without inventing a heartbeat
  the source does not emit.
- `extensions`. These carried NetKingdom's evidence class, the
  rate-monitoring prohibition, and `completeness_claimed: false` without
  touching the generic contract.
- The schema was sufficient for a valid declaration. The consumer found it
  `contract_valid` through its own profile tool.

## Friction

- `emission-review` could not be run by the consumer because
  `infospace-bench==0.1.0` is not installable from a package index. This is the
  packaging limitation SCOPE.md already records. It now costs an adopter a
  validation step.
- `reconciliation` needs an observer that does not exist, so
  `compare_observed` is a declared reference with no feed behind it.

## Gaps

- **Session-scoped silence.** The source can emit only while an attended process
  runs. `expected-rate` has no meaningful floor (`expected_min: 0` makes
  silence meaningless), and a heartbeat outside a session does not exist.
  Neither form can say "silent because not running". Filed as
  `demand/EmissionActivityScope.md`.

## Drop candidates

None.

## Steward notes

- **Validated canon-side on 2026-09-22.** `info_tech_canon emission-review` on
  the declaration at `116643f` returned `ok: true`, `errors: []`,
  `operational_truth_assessed: false`.
- **The pin was stale because of our brief, not because of the consumer.** The
  consumer pinned `972c0b6701d1693f` and labelled it document 0.2.0, as
  `docs/emission-cadence-adoption.md` instructed. That digest is the 0.1.0 draft
  bundle. The candidate promotion (`4d0851c`) changed the standard's text after
  the digest was taken, and the brief was not updated. The wire schema is
  identical in both bundles, so the declaration's validity is unaffected. The
  export manifest also hard-coded `status: draft`. It now reads status and
  version from the standard. The brief names the corrected candidate digest,
  `b08b4d95fc4b0bd3`.
- **What this counts toward.** This is one source-owned declaration from an owner
  independent of this repository. It also records an incompatibility, which is
  the third element of the stable gate (standard §10). It is not a second
  declaration and not an observer result. The standard stays at candidate.
- **Observer evaluation received, and it does not satisfy the gate.**
  audit-core replied 2026-09-22 (State Hub message `266abb18-0a85-4d85-9ff2-0745949c9587`,
  thread `368e54bf-6401-4184-a1d2-04f133945d40`), against its own AUDIT-WP-0009
  implementation (audit-core `01468ff`, read at contract digest
  `b08b4d95fc4b0bd3`): structurally, both entries in this declaration
  validate. Operationally, audit-core registers no `local-identity` sender and
  holds none of its events, so nothing sits behind `compare_observed` — by
  audit-core's own account this is "not an observer result on the stream, and
  it should not satisfy your section 10 stable gate." A second incompatibility
  surfaced: the declaration's heartbeat block names an `event_class`, but
  audit-core evaluates one heartbeat class (`audit-core.heartbeat`, carrying
  the vouched-for class in `data.class`) driven by a separately registered
  `heartbeat_classes` list — the two can drift apart, and neither side has
  reconciled that yet. audit-core states a real observer result needs a
  source with an expected-rate or reconciliation declaration registered there
  and sending traffic — which is not this declaration. INFO-WP-0029-T05
  (observer result) stays open on the strength of this reply alone.
- The NetKingdom security profile's rare-heartbeat MUST failure belongs to
  NetKingdom's profile. It is not a defect of the generic contract.