diff --git a/canon/architecture/adr-006-canon-federation-concept-ownership.md b/canon/architecture/adr-006-canon-federation-concept-ownership.md
index ac0c9ff..49c0375 100644
--- a/canon/architecture/adr-006-canon-federation-concept-ownership.md
+++ b/canon/architecture/adr-006-canon-federation-concept-ownership.md
@@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
 id: ADR-006
 type: architecture-decision-record
 title: "Canon Federation and Concept Ownership Across InfoTech and Commerce"
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 decided_by: Bernd Worsch
 date: "2026-08-16"
+accepted: "2026-08-17"
 tags: ["architecture", "canon", "concept-ownership", "info-tech-canon", "commerce-canon", "identity", "orthogonality"]
 ---
 
@@ -12,8 +13,8 @@ tags: ["architecture", "canon", "concept-ownership", "info-tech-canon", "commerc
 
 ## Status
 
-Proposed. Canon changes are review-gated; this ADR is the review artifact for
-the identity/commerce split and must be accepted before content moves.
+Accepted 2026-08-17. All seven ownership questions are resolved (see
+Resolutions); content may now move under `CFED-WP-0001`.
 
 ## Context
 
@@ -118,7 +119,7 @@ than identity-owned definitions.
 `Proxy Commercial Identifier` · convenience terms `Reputation`,
 `Customer Account`
 
-*Owned by the evidence model (see Resolution 3):*
+*Owned by `itc-evid`, the evidence model (see R3, R5, R7):*
 `Evidence` · `Evidence Source` · `Adjudication Outcome`
 
 Identifier subtypes demonstrate the intended pattern: `itc-ident` owns
@@ -226,22 +227,22 @@ legal implications outside the canon's scope"), and the open modelling
 questions. Do not build it out inside `CFED-WP-0001`; it grows on demand signal
 like any other canon content.
 
-## Open question
+**R7 — the evidence pair lives in a dedicated model, `itc-evid`.** A new
+InfoTechCanon model at `infospace/models/evidence/` owns `Evidence`,
+`Evidence Source`, `Adjudication Outcome`, and the general evidence-strength
+dimension.
 
-**Where the evidence pair lives.** R3 and R5 establish *what* is owned together
-and that commerce does not own it. The remaining choice is the home:
+`itc-gov`, `itc-ident`, and `commerce-canon` import it. Three named consumers
+existed before the model did, which is the demand signal the canon requires.
 
-1. **A dedicated evidence model** (`itc-evid`) owning `Evidence`,
-   `Evidence Source`, `Adjudication Outcome`, and the evidence-strength
-   dimension, imported by `itc-gov`, `itc-ident`, and `commerce-canon`.
-   Three named consumers already exist, which is a genuine demand signal.
-   Signals correctly that evidence is not a governance sub-topic.
-2. **`itc-gov` keeps both**, as the incumbent owner of `Evidence`. Cheapest, and
-   preserves the locality of the Policy-Control-Evidence chain pattern
-   (`:1391`) — but forces identity and commerce to import "governance" to
-   describe an invoice line item, which mis-signals.
+Rejected alternative: leaving both with `itc-gov` as incumbent owner of
+`Evidence`. That is cheaper and preserves the locality of the
+Policy-Control-Evidence chain pattern (`:1391`), but it would force identity and
+commerce to import "governance" in order to describe an invoice line item —
+mis-signalling evidence as a governance sub-topic when it is domain-neutral.
 
-Recommendation: option 1.
+`itc-gov` retains `AssuranceCase`, `AssuranceConclusion`, `Audit`, and the
+Policy-Control-Evidence pattern, now expressed over imported evidence concepts.
 
 ## Consequences