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
tegwick
b46f1060ef