tegwick
b46f1060ef
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
4.2 KiB
| id | type | title | domain | repo | status | owner | topic_slug | created | updated | flavor | state_hub_workstream_id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INFO-WP-0029 | workplan | Seek independent Emission Cadence adoption evidence | infotech | info-tech-canon | active | claude | canon-optimization | 2026-09-21 | 2026-09-21 | coordination | d743e220-9d2d-52d8-8df3-880805269639 |
Emission Cadence adoption
INFO-DEC-2026-002 split the promotion gate and moved the standard to candidate, which asserts a specified contract and no adoption. This workplan pursues the other half: the evidence the stable level requires. Authorized by the operator on 2026-09-21, which lifts the restriction INFO-WP-0019-T06 carried against outward messages.
Success is not "two declarations arrive". Success is learning whether the contract survives someone implementing it. A recorded incompatibility closes this workplan as usefully as a clean adoption does.
Publish what a source owner needs
id: INFO-WP-0029-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "c5d6422b-53a2-597a-a554-52741d4ae146"
docs/emission-cadence-adoption.md states what a source owner supplies — a
declaration they own, valid against the schema, pinned to the contract digest —
and what it does not ask for: no deployment, no runtime proof, no conformance
claim. It names the validate command, both declared forms, the separate observer
role, and says plainly that the contract has never been implemented and that
reporting where it does not fit is a successful outcome.
The ask points at this page rather than restating itself in every message, so what is being asked cannot drift between recipients.
Ask net-kingdom, the origin owner
id: INFO-WP-0029-T02
status: progress
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "845c27d1-5b66-5317-8abb-0a62eb0d9638"
The contract was assimilated from the King's Guard taxonomy and the evidence classes remain NetKingdom-owned, so net-kingdom is the one party with a pre-existing stake in being able to read silence. It is also the party most likely to find the contract's real gaps, since it wrote the problem statement.
Ask for one source-owned declaration for an event class it already emits. Waiting for a reply is expected; this task tracks the ask, not the answer.
Sent 2026-09-21 as State Hub message 3432a831-b25f-4717-ad8b-cb19fb1b6633.
Ask a second, independent source
id: INFO-WP-0029-T03
status: progress
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "bb74cce9-12d8-58e2-ad44-c4aeb7b72f37"
The second declaration must come from an owner independent of net-kingdom.
activity-core is the candidate: it has a real, documented periodic emission
relationship into issue-core, so declared cadence is a question it already has
rather than one this request invents.
Sent 2026-09-21 as State Hub message f1687805-3153-47c2-9744-05a2b1a6b8c1.
Both messages name the brief rather than restating the ask, and both say that a
recorded incompatibility is a successful outcome.
Record the evidence or the incompatibility
id: INFO-WP-0029-T04
status: wait
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "4771ff59-264e-5917-a49d-8989b361b8ed"
Validate whatever arrives with emission-review, record it as adoption
evidence under feedback/, and write up what the attempt revealed. If a
declaration cannot be expressed in either form, that is the finding, and it goes
to the standard as a change proposal rather than being worked around in the
declaration.
Observer result
id: INFO-WP-0029-T05
status: wait
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "0486fcba-3609-50c5-b347-e7ee84f9f548"
One result from a party other than the declaring source, evaluating a declared cadence against observed events. Blocked until at least one declaration exists, since there is nothing to evaluate before then.
Honest limit on what this can prove
Both candidate owners are repositories in the same operator's fleet. They are independent of each other and of this repository in the sense the standard's section 10 requires, and that is the sense the gate was written in — but they are not independent of the operator. Evidence gathered here demonstrates that the contract is implementable by parties who did not write it. It does not demonstrate ecosystem adoption, and no promotion note may claim otherwise.