interface-canon/infospace/mappings/infotech-follow-through.md

InfoTechCanon clarification follow-through

Request: the user supplied InfoTechCanon's focused request on 2026-09-09 to apply accepted clarifications, link acceptance commit f921e5a, and check examples. Workplan: INTERFACE-WP-0005. No full review restart is needed.

The acceptance record was already pinned, and part of the clarification text was already implemented in 0.1.2. This pass completes its propagation into the main mapping table and makes the example checks explicit. It preserves the existing model definitions and seven InfoTechCanon import pins, FIAM source pins, draft 0.1.2 version, and the owners' original 0.1.1 review targets. This is documentation follow-through, not a semantic release or new owner approval.

Traceability

All rows derive from the accepted dispositions in the owner record at f921e5a543db8da49781bd560d303f780623d204, verified through its immutable source manifest. FIAM locators below refer to the pinned Core in the FIAM source manifest.

Concern	Explicit mapping and example check	FIAM compatibility
Port	Device port, transport port, and contract-participation Port remain distinct. Model NIC/TCP/service case and Repo Manager Port check.	#/$defs/port, contractParticipation: offered/required contract participation and contextual roles.
InterfaceContract	Semantic agreement is contextual to Landscape/Network Interface, with no universal alias. Repo Manager contract versus NIC case.	#/$defs/interfaceContract, binding: contract and realization remain separate.
Endpoint	Binding locator/selector differs from resource selector; stdio does not require a Network Endpoint. Model MCP stdio case and Repo Manager locator/slug check.	#/$defs/endpoint, resourceSelector, binding: endpoints optional on Binding; selector addresses information.
Resource/shape	Addressed projection state differs from admissible request form; ITC data terms retain scoped meanings. Repo Manager Resource/shape check and model JSON/schema case.	#/$defs/informationResource, informationShape: state independent of an interaction; form independent of resource/artifact/encoding.
Representation	JSON encoding differs from boolean value-level form. Model JSON/boolean case and Repo Manager request field check.	Draft 1 representation hardening: most-specific shape-participation assertion is authoritative.
Artifact/KnowledgeArtifact	Describing reusable knowledge may qualify; implementation alone is insufficient. Model schema/binary case and Repo Manager source roles.	#/$defs/artifact: distinct describes/implements roles without a universal knowledge-artifact assertion.
Evidence	Addressable versioned/captured source differs from assertion for an explicit interest. Model mutable-page case and Repo Manager expected_commit assertion.	#/$defs/assertion, evidenceRecord: assertion and support metadata retained; no one-to-one renaming into ITC Evidence.

Checked surfaces: main mappings, original mapping review with clarifications, model boundary cases, and Repo Manager example.

Result: all seven mapping concerns from the accepted dispositions are explicit and exercised by examples. No unresolved inconsistency was found within this bounded request. This is not a claim that every concept in both canons has been exhaustively aligned. Shared meanings stay upstream; FIAM retains standard and conformance authority. No runtime behavior or peer definitions were changed.