info-tech-canon/infospace/assimilation/it-capability-canon/comparison-matrix.md

Comparison Matrix — ITCC v0.1 vs InfoTechCanon

Result categories per InfoTechCanonCore §14.6.

1. Object model

ITCC concept	Nearest canon owner	Category	Resolution
Capability	none — Landscape §11 defers it ("keep only landscape-relevant references once a dedicated strategy/capability standard exists")	missing_concept	New model owns Capability
Capability Profile	Core §8.6 Profile	covered_differently	Keep both; rename to CapabilityProfile, state the distinction explicitly
Capability Domain	Core namespaces	missing_concept	Adopt as navigation-only, non-semantic
Requirement	DemandSignal, ConsumerNeed (Purpose and Demand extension)	narrower_than_existing	Adopt as CapabilityRequirement, defined as a typed DemandSignal carrying a minimum maturity
Provider	Landscape ServiceProvider, Service, ServiceInstance	covered_differently	Import Landscape entities; CapabilityProvider is a role, not a new entity type
Implementation	Landscape Technology, SoftwareEntity, RuntimeEntity	already_covered	Import; do not redefine
Resource (C/S/N/I/P)	Landscape RuntimeResource	broader_than_existing	Adopt the classification as CapabilityResourceClass for cost attribution; the entity stays with Landscape
Evidence	Governance Evidence; Observability signals	already_covered	Import; add CapabilityEvidenceHook as the capability-scoped expectation
Maturity D0–D7	Core status/lifecycle model; conformance levels	missing_concept	Adopt; explicitly not an artifact status and not a conformance level
Provision	none	missing_concept	Make explicit — maturity attaches here, per the source's own correct/incorrect example
Quality dimension	Landscape ServiceLevelObjective; Observability SLOs	narrower_than_existing	Adopt as named dimensions; measured targets stay with Observability
Capability contract	Core Standard/schema conventions	missing_concept	Adopt as the machine-readable capability record

2. Relationships

ITCC relationship	Category	Resolution
depends_on, may_use, composes	missing_concept	Owned by the new model
requires	missing_concept	Landscape entity or consumer purpose → capability
provides	missing_concept	Landscape service/provider → capability
implements	covered_differently	Landscape already relates technology to service; the capability-typed form is new
consumes	missing_concept	Provision → resource class, for cost attribution

3. Capability baseline vs existing domain models

The 41 capabilities are abilities; the existing models own the structures that realize, govern, or observe them. No capability duplicates a canon concept — but each anchors to an owning model, which is what makes the baseline safe to adopt.

Capability group	Anchoring canon owner	Category	Note
identity.*	Access Control, Organization, CARING	viewpoint_difference	Access Control owns Subject/Principal/Permission/Grant/Decision; identity.authorization is the ability, not the mechanism. identity.organization anchors on Organization (tenancy) — no second tenancy definition.
data.*	Data Model	viewpoint_difference	Data owns Dataset/Schema/Classification/Lineage/Contract; persistence, backup, archive, search are abilities over them
integration.*	Landscape, Network	viewpoint_difference	integration.traffic overlaps Network exposure/reachability — mapped, not redefined
runtime.*	Landscape, DevSecOps	viewpoint_difference	runtime.deployment anchors on DevSecOps source→artifact→release→deployment flow
operations.*	Observability, Governance	viewpoint_difference	operations.audit anchors on Governance evidence, operations.observability on the Observability model
security.*	Security, Governance	viewpoint_difference	security.policy must import Governance Policy/Control; it does not define policy semantics
governance.evidence, governance.lifecycle	Governance, Data	conflicting_concept (naming)	IDs sit in the Security & Governance navigation domain while using a governance. prefix — see open-questions.md OQ-2
commerce.*	none	missing_concept	Genuinely new canon surface; no existing model covers metering, billing, payment, entitlement
intelligence.*	none	missing_concept	Genuinely new canon surface; Information Space covers retrieval of markdown knowledge, not metered cognitive processing

4. Structural claims

Claim	Category	Note
"The model is a graph, domains are navigation only"	terminology_difference_only	Core §6.4 Network Before Tree already says this
"Import; do not duplicate" (§15)	already_covered	Core §6.3 Import, Do Not Redefine
Prefer profiles over new capabilities (§8)	already_covered	Core §6.5 Profiles, Not Forks
Evidence over assertion (§19)	already_covered	Core §6.9 Evidence and Provenance Matter
CILM as a proposed sibling model (§15)	already_covered	The Landscape Model already owns landscape entities — rejected as a new model
Intended / declared / applied / observed / assessed state (§15)	broader_than_existing	Not currently a canon-wide qualifier set — carried to OQ-3, not adopted here

5. Verdict

• No conflicting definition of an existing canonical concept was found.
• Two capability groups (commerce.*, intelligence.*) are canon-new surface.
• One naming conflict (governance.* prefix) and one structural proposal (CILM) require resolution or rejection before promotion beyond proposed.
• The dominant relationship to existing models is anchoring, not overlap, which supports disposition adapt rather than observe or reject.