# Open questions — EmissionCadenceDeclaration

No question blocks adoption.

The following promotion questions remain for the draft's future review:

1. Do two independent source implementations need interval tolerance or grace
   fields in the generic core, or can profiles carry them in `extensions`?
2. Should schema 1.0 retain the handed-over name `sources` for cadence entries,
   or migrate to the clearer `cadences` with explicit compatibility tooling?
3. Does reconciliation eventually need a generic typed counter-selector
   language, or are owner-defined field references sufficient?

These are review triggers, not deferred implementation tasks.