INFO-DEC-2026-002 moved the standard to candidate, which asserts a specified
contract and no adoption. This pursues the other half, authorized by the
operator on 2026-09-21, which lifts the restriction INFO-WP-0019-T06 carried
against outward messages.
docs/emission-cadence-adoption.md states what a source owner supplies — a
declaration they own, valid against the schema and pinned to contract digest
972c0b6701d1693f — and what is not being asked for: no deployment, no runtime
proof, no conformance claim, no change to their system. Both requests point at
that page rather than restating the ask, so what is being asked cannot drift
between recipients.
net-kingdom is asked first because the contract was assimilated from the King's
Guard taxonomy and the evidence classes remain NetKingdom-owned, so it wrote the
problem statement and is most likely to find the contract's real gaps.
activity-core is the independent second, because its periodic emission into
issue-core means declared cadence is a question it already has.
Both messages say that a recorded incompatibility is a successful outcome, not a
failure. Success for this workplan is learning whether the contract survives
implementation, not collecting two clean files.
The workplan records what this can and cannot prove: both owners are repositories
in the same operator's fleet, independent of each other and of this repository in
the sense section 10 requires, but not independent of the operator. No promotion
note may read this as ecosystem adoption.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Federation partners pin an artifact path, a blob hash and a list of concept
names. Every review so far verified the hash and recorded the match as evidence.
A hash proves the reviewed file is the pinned file; it says nothing about whether
the concept named in the manifest exists in it. Nobody ran the second check until
INFO-WP-0027-T04, which found nine failures across the two accepted boundaries,
none of them a contested concept and all of them a citation naming the wrong
artifact or a name this canon never used.
The workplan adds a reusable import-review command in the shape emission-review
already uses, registers accepted manifests so drift is caught when this
repository changes rather than when a partner happens to look, generalises the
re-verification section into the review kit so an acceptance cannot again record
matching hashes as evidence of correct citation, and closes the two open pins
InterfaceCanon still owns.
Drift against a registered manifest is a warning, not an error: a stale partner
pin is not this repository's file to fix and must not fail its build.
Status is proposed: drafted from the INFO-WP-0027 findings, not yet reviewed by
the owner.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
The ownership index is built from artifact titles and owned_concepts frontmatter
only, so the conflict check cannot see a concept that is defined in prose,
assigned an owner by the kernel map and referenced elsewhere by qualified id.
Measured at 209bb5a: 164 index entries against twelve live models and standards
that declare nothing, and 519 bold-form definitions across fifteen live
artifacts that appear in no declaration.
The SecurityCanon boundary review recorded a clean conflict result that could
not have seen itc-org:Authority for exactly this reason; the gap was caught by
hand in SECURITY-WP-0001-T03. The workplan establishes the true denominator,
declares concepts for the twelve silent artifacts, reports coverage as a moving
number with a recorded enforcement level, re-verifies both accepted extension
boundaries against the enlarged index, and resolves residual R-3 as its first
real use. Residual R-2 is explicitly excluded.
Status is proposed: drafted against verified repository state but not yet
reviewed by the owner.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 3588@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 24b80f66-e5a7-4e61-99fe-2d422e6d17da
Regenerated by fix-consistency; adds the inbound layer-declaration intake.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2564823@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2a7ed827-4928-4b9f-8613-9135c9cadfe9
fix-consistency C-06 wrote workplan and task UUIDs back into the workplan
files and regenerated WORK-RECORDS.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
