info-tech-canon/history/2026-09-20_230456+0200-concept-declaration-baseline.md

Concept declaration coverage — baseline measurement

Date: 2026-09-20 23:04 (Europe/Berlin) Task: INFO-WP-0027-T01 Measured at: working tree on 37ad0c9, before any declaration change Command: info_tech_canon concept-coverage

What was measured

concept_ownership() builds the ownership index from two sources only: each artifact's title, and its owned_concepts frontmatter. This report adds a third view — concepts an artifact defines in prose — so the gap between what the canon defines and what it declares can be counted rather than estimated.

Extraction covers three forms, over live artifacts only. Preserved source under assimilation/, seeds/ and incoming/ is excluded: it records what others wrote, not what this canon owns.

• bold — **Name** is|—|defines|denotes|identifies|represents
• heading — a numbered section heading whose title is restated as a bold definition within five lines. This is the form itc-org:Authority (ITC-ORG 10.17) and itc-ident:Scope (ITC-IDENT 2.10) use, and the form that made finding F-1 invisible.
• table — rows of a table whose first column is headed Concept, Term, Name or Entity. Only the kernel map uses it, appropriately: it assigns concepts to owners rather than defining them.

Candidates are review input, never ownership. A concept becomes owned by being declared, not by being matched here.

Result

Measure	Count
Live artifacts measured	31
Concepts declared by those artifacts	113
Concepts defined in their prose	690
Defined but undeclared	637
Artifacts with no owned_concepts frontmatter at all	13

Declaration coverage is about 16 percent of what the measured artifacts define. The workplan estimated 519 undeclared terms from the bold form alone; adding the heading and table forms raises it to 637, and nine artifacts each carry forty or more undeclared definitions.

The thirteen silent artifacts: kernel/itc-core, kernel/itc-kernel-map, model/access-control, model/data, model/devsecops, model/governance, model/information-space, model/landscape, model/network, model/observability, model/security, model/task, standard/tagging. This is one more than the twelve the workplan named — kernel/itc-core declares owned_concepts nowhere despite defining 36 concepts by heading and 21 by bold form, and it is the artifact every other artifact imports from.

Per-artifact

Artifact	Declared	Defined	Undeclared	Declares frontmatter
model/network	1	79	78	no
model/information-space	1	72	71	no
model/observability	1	68	67	no
model/devsecops	1	63	62	no
model/data	1	53	52	no
model/security	1	53	52	no
model/task	1	53	52	no
model/access-control	1	49	48	no
model/governance	1	46	45	no
kernel/itc-core	1	37	36	no
model/organization	3	28	25	yes
standard/tagging	1	26	25	no
kernel/itc-kernel-map	1	11	11	no
model/landscape	1	7	6	no
standard/caring	16	5	5	yes
model/capability	14	3	2	yes
comparison/repo-scoping/consumer-workplan-brief	1	0	0	no
comparison/repo-scoping/report	1	0	0	no
concept-area/family	2	0	0	yes
conformance/railiance-fabric/consumer-workplan-brief	1	0	0	no
evaluation/user-engine/consumer-workplan-brief	1	0	0	no
model/evidence	5	4	0	yes
model/identity	24	23	0	yes
model/purpose-demand-extension	10	9	0	yes
pattern/intent-scope-purposes	2	0	0	yes
practice-pattern/agentic-drives-functional	4	0	0	yes
practice-pattern/interface-deprecation-strangler	1	0	0	no
review-kit/alignment/workplan-template	1	0	0	no
scheme/practice-pattern	3	0	0	yes
standard/emission-cadence	6	0	0	yes
standard/repository-layout	5	1	0	yes

Findings

F-1 reproduces. Authority appears in model/organization's undeclared list. The SecurityCanon boundary review compared seven SecurityCanon concepts against every owned_concepts declaration and recorded a clean result; this measurement shows why that result was structurally unable to see the conflict candidate that SECURITY-WP-0001-T03 later found by hand.

Actor is undeclared too. The Organization Model declares three concepts — Community, Household and its title — while defining 28. Actor is among the undeclared, yet SecurityCanon imports Actor from this artifact by name, with a pinned hash, and the identity model lists it as an ITC-ORG concept. The corpus treats it as owned; the machine-readable declaration does not say so. The same holds for Ownership, Membership, Role and Accountability.

The silent artifacts are the exposed ones. Access control, security and DevSecOps are precisely the surfaces that federation partners reference. The artifacts with the best declarations — identity, CARING, the Purpose and Demand extension — are the ones that have been through a boundary review. Declaration quality tracks review history, not importance.

Extraction quality is good enough to review from, and not good enough to trust. Spot-checking model/organization returns Accountability, Actor, Agent, Assignment, Authority, CollectiveActor, Competence, Group, Membership, Organization, OrganizationEntity, Position — all real concepts. But the heading form will also catch section titles that merely restate a defined term, and no extractor can tell a concept this canon owns from one it imports and re-explains. That judgment is T02's work, per artifact, by hand.

What this does not measure

Ownership of concepts defined only in tables outside the kernel map, in YAML payloads, or in prose that defines without the bold form. The 637 is a floor.

Next

T02 declares concepts for the silent artifacts, ordered by federation exposure: access control, security, DevSecOps, governance. kernel/itc-core should be added to that order at the front — it was missed when the workplan was written, and it is the most-imported artifact in the corpus.