Open tasks

Work the wiki has identified as owed but not done. Each entry names who asked, when, what the trigger was, and what “done” looks like. Closed items move to the bottom with their resolution and stay there — an abandoned task is itself a finding.

Ordinary maintenance chores (a missing cross-reference, a page to tidy) belong in a lint report, not here. This page is for substantive positions SINE owes, or questions the wiki has raised and cannot answer from its own sources.

1. SINE’s critical response to the ledger architecture candidate

Raised by Martin Pompéry, 2026-08-17 · Status: open

“Zum Architekturkandidaten müssen wir kritisches Feedback als SINE.”

Trigger. The ingest of The Carbon Accounting Landscape Review (ICC, 2026). The Review proposes ledger-based carbon accounting as the architecture for product-level carbon data, assesses PACT — which SINE co-built — against it, and records PACT as an exchange layer that “exchanges data rather than accountable quantities”. The framework-development process is live. SINE has no position on record.

Why it cannot wait. ⟨Inference: the eight criteria are being treated as settled input to the framework, not as an open question. A response written after the framework exists is commentary; one written now is input.⟩

What a response has to cover, at minimum:

The criteria grid. Martin’s objection is already on record — A, C, D and G are near-synonyms — and is captured with my counter-reading on the criteria page. A SINE response should either sharpen that into a concrete redrafting or drop it.
The confidentiality gap. The one criterion (B) whose satisfaction is cryptographic rather than institutional, stated once and then carried nowhere — see the confidentiality gap. This is the substantive contribution SINE is positioned to make. ⟨Unblocked 2026-08-17.⟩ Both papers are now ingested; the mechanism exists, is implemented and is costed — Verifiable Carbon Accounting. The response can say this works, here is the price, with authors inside SINE’s own CCTI programme.
The exchange/accounting layering. Whether SINE accepts the Review’s division of labour (§5.3: exchange from PACT, architecture from E-Ledgers), and what it means for PACT if the ledger layer eventually absorbs the exchange layer rather than sitting on it.
What SINE concedes. ⟨Inference: a response that only defends PACT will read as incumbent defensiveness. The conservation and reconciliation charges are, on the wiki’s own reading of PACT’s methodology, largely correct.⟩
The 2022 boundary. ⟨Added 2026-10-29.⟩ PACT’s own founding vision paper rules the ledger layer out of scope in so many words: the Network “cannot be used to calculate a carbon footprint or to store any individual footprint data”, is peer-to-peer “with no need for a central intermediary”, and is explicitly not a standards body. So the ICC is not describing an unfinished PACT — it is proposing a stateful system in the space PACT declared out of bounds before it built anything. A SINE response has to pick: defend the boundary (and say what the exchange layer is for, if conservation is someone else’s job) or move it (and say what that costs in sovereignty, which is the argument the boundary was drawn to win). Avoiding the choice is the one option that reads as incumbent defensiveness. The same source supplies the uncomfortable half: the four Table 4 charges land on the boxes PACT itself left unspecified in its 2022 Figure 4, and verification is still a roadmap three and a half years later — see what was promised in 2022.
The closing constraint ⟨added 2026-08-17⟩. Cryptography can prove reconciliation against an independently attested closing aggregate but cannot supply one; the ledger’s conservation rule is exactly such an aggregate, manufactured institutionally where no physical meter exists. So ledger and proofs are complements, not rivals — and neither ICC nor either paper says so. ⟨Inference: if the response has one headline, this is it. See ledger-based carbon accounting.⟩
The enforcement argument ⟨added 2026-08-17⟩. Man & Kleppmann couple carbon accounting to financial accounting, so that “in order to lie about its emissions, the company would then also have to lie about its finances, which raises the stakes by making misreporting a crime.” ICC argues carbon accounting should resemble financial accounting and has no equivalent enforcement move. ⟨Inference: cheap for ICC to adopt, valuable for SINE to have proposed.⟩
The temporal-resolution conflict and the service case ⟨added 2026-08-17⟩. Criterion H demands transaction-level, near-real-time records; Criterion C demands comparability; period-averaging is how LCA delivers C, and the Review treats it only as a defect. Separately, the word “service” occurs once in the whole document, in the ICC boilerplate — in a framework addressed to what is mostly Scope 3. See temporal resolution and the service case. ⟨Inference: unlike the confidentiality gap, these cost SINE nothing to raise and sell nothing — which is what makes them credible. The temporal point has a constructive form (decouple recording frequency from reporting frequency, and let the rulebook fix the aggregation window); the service point is, honestly, a question to the Panel.⟩
The grid may have been built backwards from the architecture ⟨added 2026-08-17 at Martin Pompéry’s instruction; the reading is mine and is the sharpest claim on this list⟩. Taking points 1 and 7 together: four of the eight criteria (A, C, D, G) restate long-settled accounting characteristics, three (E, F, H) carry the entire load and are the three no inventory-based approach can satisfy, and the eighth — H, the only one the Secretariat wrote itself rather than adopting from the Panel — contradicts one of the four. ⟨Inference: that pattern is what a grid looks like when it is derived from a preferred answer and then presented as independent criteria, rather than derived independently and applied. I do not claim intent, and the wiki records a real defence: the Secretariat states it adopted seven criteria “in that statement’s order and wording” from a document that is not in sources/ — so part of the redundancy may be inherited. That defence does not extend to H.⟩

Handle with care. This is a claim about how the document was made, not about what it says, and it is the one point on this list that cannot be conceded gracefully by its recipient. ⟨Inference: it should either be left out of anything addressed to ICC and kept as SINE’s internal reading, or carried only in the constructive form — propose a non-redundant grid — where the same conclusion is available to the reader without being asserted. Decide this deliberately when the dossier is written, not by default. Settling item 3 below (the Panel’s own principles statement) is a precondition for the sharp version.⟩

No longer blocked. Both prerequisite ingests closed on 2026-08-17 — see the Closed section.

Done looks like: a dossier, filed in dossiers/, with the durable claims fed back onto the wiki pages above.

2. Ingest: ICC Carbon Accounting FAQ

Raised by Martin Pompéry, 2026-08-17 · Status: queued

Downloaded and converted to Markdown at sources/whitepapers/2026-08-17-icc-carbon-accounting-landscape-review-faqs.pdf (+ twin). Next in the queue.

⟨Lint 2026-09-28: “next in the queue” has been false for six weeks. Four ingests have gone ahead of it — the three Upright texts (2026-09-10) and Kim et al. (2026-09-24) — each because it arrived by hand from Martin Pompéry, which is the actual queue discipline in operation: most recently handed over wins. The status is kept as queued rather than rewritten, because the item is still owed and it is the direct prerequisite for item 1, the only task on this page with an external audience waiting. Naming the real ordering rule so the next lint stops reading “next” as a plan.⟩

3. Missing source: the Panel’s Mission, Opportunity, and Principles

Raised by Elinor, 2026-08-17 · Status: open

Seven of the eight decision-grade criteria are quoted in the wiki at second hand, through the Review’s restatement of a document that is not in sources/. Until the statement itself is ingested, the wiki cannot tell the Panel’s wording from the Secretariat’s gloss on it — and that distinction is load-bearing for objection 1 above. See Carbon Measures.

4. Undocumented: Jonathan Heiss’s role inside CCTI

Raised by Elinor, 2026-08-17 · Status: open

Martin Pompéry states that Jonathan Heiss is part of SINE within the CCTI programme. He is not named in sources/proposals/2026-06-17-aria-ccti-proposal-draft-2.md, so his work package, deliverables and contractual position are unrecorded — while the wiki now leans on his 2023 paper as SINE’s own answer to Criterion B. ⟨Inference: a response to ICC that credits SINE with this work should rest on something more than a Slack line.⟩ See Jonathan Heiss.

5. Unrecorded: the outcome of GIZ Tender 10036847

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-08-31 · Status: open — unchanged at the 2026-09-07, 2026-09-14, 2026-09-21, 2026-09-28, 2026-10-05, 2026-10-12 and 2026-10-19 lints, i.e. through eight consecutive health checks since the 21.08.2026 deadline passed. ⚠⚠ The contract term started 15.10.2026 — four days ago.

⟨Lint 2026-10-19. The date the last lint flagged as three days out is now four days past, and nothing arrived in between. The item’s question changes a second time: on 2026-10-12 it moved from “did we bid” to “are we delivering”; today it is “has a twelve-month engagement been running since Thursday”. ⟨Inference: of the three branches named below, the first — award made, wiki not told — now carries a weak counter-indication. An award that held the advertised start date would have left operative traces by 15.10.: a kickoff, a signature, named people blocked out. None are visible to the wiki, but the wiki sees very little of this procedure, so this is an indication and not evidence. What it does change is the cost of the gap: a recording gap about a future date costs nothing; a recording gap about a contract that may be four days into performance is the kind that produces a missed deliverable.⟩ Note also the asymmetry this week makes visible: the wiki absorbed eight sources in four days for the Hitachi engagement, which demonstrates there is no capacity problem — this item has gone unanswered for eight weeks for want of one sentence from inside SINE, not for want of effort here.⟩

⟨Lint 2026-10-12. This item changes character today, and the trigger was already on the page: the tender’s contract term is 15.10.2026 – 15.10.2027 while the Zuschlags-/Bindefrist runs to 13.11.2026. Both facts were ingested on 2026-08-13 and have sat side by side since, unremarked — a contract due to start four weeks before the binding period for awarding it expires. ⟨Inference: exactly one of three things is true, and the wiki can distinguish none of them — the award was made some time ago and nobody told us; the start date has already slipped; or the procedure lapsed without an award. What makes this different from an ordinary recording gap is the consequence of the first branch: from 15.10.2026 SINE people would be inside a live twelve-month contract — 56 fee days for the Team Leader alone, a Key Expert 1 role for Tell Münzing — and the wiki would hold not one line about it. Six lints asked “did we bid”; the question that now matters is “are we delivering”.⟩ Flagged on the tender page banner.⟩

The submission deadline (21.08.2026, 12:00) has passed and the wiki records no outcome: not whether SINE submitted, not with which consortium, not whether HRNS ever committed. Both tender pages were written before the deadline and read as live task lists; they are now flagged as pre-deadline snapshots, but the flag is not a substitute for the fact. The Zuschlags-/Bindefrist runs to 13.11.2026, so an award decision is still ahead. Two pages, eight recorded blockers and a five-CV gap analysis hang on this. See tender page, consortium page.

Done looks like: one paragraph on the tender page — submitted or not, in which constellation, and what is now being waited for.

6. Un-ingested source: Open Problems in Cooperative AI (Dafoe et al., 2020)

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-08-31 · Status: open

Downloaded and converted to Markdown on 2026-08-22 at sources/whitepapers/2026-08-22-dafoe2020-open-problems-in-cooperative-ai.pdf (+ twin), then never ingested: no wiki page, no index entry, no log entry. ⟨Lint 2026-09-28: this entry used to call it “the only source in the repository in that state.” No longer true — three more bundles arrived 2026-09-22/25 in the same condition; see item 11. Dafoe is now the oldest such source, not the only one, and has been waiting five weeks.⟩ It sits directly on the AI Advantage claim and on coordination vs. bargaining failure; ⟨Inference: it is the nearest thing to an academic literature for what CCTI proposes to measure, so leaving it unread is the wiki’s most load-bearing omission on the CCTI side.⟩

7. Unfiled source: FNG-Marktbericht 2026

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-08-31 · Status: open — partially advanced by 2026-09-07

sources/sustainable-finance/2026-08-31-fng-marktbericht-2026.pdf appeared on 2026-08-31 in a new sustainable-finance/ subdirectory, with no record of who filed it or why. It is the first sustainable-finance source in the repository, which makes it a new subject area rather than an addition to an existing one. Still no wiki page and no log entry; the ingest conversation has not happened.

Twin situation, resolved at the 2026-09-07 lint. Two Markdown renditions now exist alongside the PDF, both created 2026-08-31/09-01 by someone other than me:

2026-08-31-fng-marktbericht-2026-marker.md (1,427 lines) — a marker_single conversion: headings, emphasis, figure placeholders. This is the twin to ingest from.
2026-08-31-fng-marktbericht-2026.md (4,608 lines) — a flat text extraction that preserves the PDF’s visual line breaks and interleaves layout fragments (“Sponsored by”) into the running text. Not usable as a reading twin.

⟨Note: two divergences from convention are recorded rather than corrected, because sources/ is immutable — the twin sits flat in the subdirectory rather than in a <slug>/ folder, and it carries a -marker suffix instead of the PDF’s own stem. Both are cosmetic; the content is fine.⟩

8. Unanswerable from sources: CCTI Milestone 1, due 30.09.2026

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-09-07 · Status: open, re-checked 2026-09-14, 2026-09-21, 2026-09-28, 2026-10-05, 2026-10-12, 2026-10-19 and 2026-11-02 — still nothing. ⚠⚠ The milestone date PASSED on 30.09.2026, 33 days ago, and the wiki still records the evaluation use cases as “not yet selected”. The question has changed shape: it is no longer “will the gate be met” but “was it met, and nobody told the wiki”. ⟨No ask on 2026-10-26: that week’s scheduled lint failed on an API error before it ran. Eight asks in nine weeks, none answered.⟩

⟨Lint 2026-10-19: seven weekly asks, none answered. This is now the longest-running unanswered item in the file by a clear margin, and the contrast with the Hitachi week is the finding rather than the miss itself. Between 14 and 16 October the wiki ingested eight sources on an engagement that has existed for three weeks, because someone outside sent material in. CCTI is a programme SINE itself runs, is nineteen days past its first gate, and has produced nothing for the wiki since a draft proposal of 2026-06-17. ⟨Inference: the determining variable is not subject matter or effort but whether anyone pushes material across the boundary. Where there is a sender the wiki is current within a day; where there is none it is four months stale on SINE’s own project. No amount of linting fixes the second case.⟩⟩

⟨Lint 2026-10-12: six weekly asks, none answered — and this check found that the tracking was better than the wiki. The CCTI page itself still carried the milestone in the future tense and dated its last re-check to 2026-09-14, four weeks behind this file. A reader who opened the project page rather than this one would have seen a gate still ahead of it. Corrected on both passages of the CCTI page today. The item stays open: the fix was to the bookkeeping, not to the missing fact.⟩

⟨Lint 2026-10-05: five weekly checks asked the same question and none was answered, which makes this the longest-running unanswered ask in the file and the clearest instance of the wiki’s standing blind spot — it has no inbound channel from inside a programme SINE itself runs. Note what did arrive in the same week: a detailed CCTI description, with work-package content and dates, written into a client-facing document for Hitachi (item 13). The programme information exists and circulates; it just does not come here.⟩

⟨Lint 2026-09-28: this line previously read “The 2026-09-21 check is the last one that falls before the milestone date.” That was wrong on its own arithmetic — the lint runs weekly, so 2026-09-28 also precedes 30.09.2026, and this is the last check before the gate. The error mattered in the one way a scheduling error can: it retired the deadline a week early, so the 2026-09-21 report treated the question as closed for reporting purposes when one more ask was still available. Making it now.⟩

CCTI’s first milestone — “Setup, use-case selection and specification; first integration map + convergence-method proposal” — falls due 30.09.2026. The wiki’s only source on it is the 2026-06-17 proposal draft, which records the evaluation use cases as “not yet selected”. Nothing later exists.

⟨Inference: the wiki therefore cannot distinguish a gate that is about to be missed from one that was met without being reported here — and that is the defect worth naming, not the milestone itself. One line from inside the programme closes it.⟩ The same gap sits under item 4 (Heiss’s undocumented role): the wiki leans on CCTI for SINE’s answer to Criterion B while holding no source on CCTI newer than the draft proposal.

Done looks like: a dated status line on the CCTI page — use cases selected or not, and by when.

⟨Added 2026-09-10: the Upright ingest produced a concrete candidate for that slot — proving in zero knowledge that a set of implied impact magnitudes is the coherent solution to a private set of pairwise judgements. Proprietary inputs, mathematical rather than semantic property, an existing paying skeptical audience. Written up on Coherence as a truth substitute and the EIC page. This does not close the item — the question is still what CCTI actually selected — but it changes the ask from “is there anything” to “was something better than this chosen”.⟩

9. Dossier-only findings: five papers whose analysis never reached a wiki page

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-09-21 · Status: open

The persona’s rule is explicit: a dossier is never itself the citable source — durable findings belong on a wiki page that cites the underlying primary source. Five papers currently violate it in the one direction that matters. They were acquired, read, and used to carry an argument in a dossier, and the corresponding wiki page carries neither the finding nor the citation:

Paper	Used in	On any wiki page
Akbarpour & Li, Credible Auctions: A Trilemma (2020)	Dossier 1, 2×	no
D’Annunzio, Russo & Shekhar, The AdTech Tax (CSEF 758)	Dossier 1, 4×	no
Göke & Weintraub, Auction Format Change (2021)	Dossier 1, 2×	no
CMA, AI Foundation Models — Update Paper (2024)	Dossier 2, “over 90 partnerships involving GAMMAN firms”, Nr. 43 p. 17	no
Jacobides et al., Evolutionary Dynamics of the AI Ecosystem (2021)	Dossier 2, 1×	no

⟨Inference: this is the same failure the 2026-09-14 lint found for the Upright caveat, one layer up. There, a hedge did not survive the hop from an entity page to the pages citing it; here, a citation does not survive the hop from a dossier to the wiki page distilled from it. Both are losses at a boundary crossing, and in both cases the wiki page looks complete on its own terms — which is why neither shows up as a broken link or a missing page.⟩

Done looks like: one pass per paper deciding whether the finding is durable enough for the wiki. If yes, it goes on the relevant concept page with a sources/ path; if no, it is recorded here as deliberately dossier-only, so the next lint stops re-finding it. The Akbarpour & Li trilemma is the one to do first — a credibility/ optimality/ simplicity impossibility result is squarely on binary-verifiable remedies, which argues about exactly that trade-off without it.

Raised by Elinor (ingest of Kim et al.), 2026-09-24 · Status: open

The Kim ingest produced a clean finding and one hypothesis resting on nothing. The finding: across 23 pages on standardising biodiversity and ecosystem-service data for the KM-GBF and SEEA EA, commercial confidentiality is never named and cryptography never reached for — the reporting entities are states, and the binding constraint is data sovereignty, answered by federation. The hypothesis: that this flips the moment the reporting entity is a firm disclosing nature-related dependencies under TNFD, and that the bargaining half of the problem reappears there with no instrument in place — the same shape carbon had before PACT.

That second half has no primary source. TNFD, the Nature Positive Initiative and the NGFS are in the wiki only through Kim et al.’s passing mention of them. See nature-related reporting frameworks, where the inference is marked unverified, and coordination vs. bargaining failure, which now leans on the state-side case as its control.

⟨Inference: this is cheap to close and disproportionately load-bearing. If confidentiality is named in TNFD’s core disclosure metrics, the wiki has a second domain with the exact shape SINE’s distinctive technology addresses, and Stefan Dierks is a live route into it. If it is not, the biodiversity line is a pure-coordination domain end to end and SINE has only its non-distinctive half to offer there — which is worth knowing before anyone invests in the theme.⟩

Done looks like: ingest the TNFD core disclosure metrics (TNFD 2023) and the NGFS nature-related framework (NGFS 2023/2024) as primary sources, one at a time, and settle the question on the concept page either way.

11. Eight un-ingested sources, filed 22 September – 29 October

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-09-28 · **Status: open, extended 2026-10-05 with a fourth item, 2026-10-12 with a fifth and sixth, 2026-10-19 with a seventh that had been sitting in another item’s prose, and 2026-11-02 with an eighth and ninth that were in no register at all · reduced to eight on 2026-11-06 by the PACT Tech Specs v2.2 ingest

Between 2026-09-22 and 2026-09-25 four source bundles were filed. One was ingested (Kim et al., 2026-09-24). The other three have no wiki page, no index entry, no log entry and no citation anywhere — the state item 6 describes. Two of the three open a subject area the wiki has never covered.

Bundle	Filed	What it is	Priority
`sources/standards/2026-09-23-ghgp-ami-request-for-information-summary-of-responses.pdf` (+ twin)	22-09-23	GHG Protocol, Actions and Market Instruments Phase 1 RFI — summary of 437 responses, consultation 31.03–15.06.2026, input to Phase 2	first
`sources/climate/2026-09-22-ipcc-ar6-*` (7 files)	2026-09-22	IPCC AR6 — SYR (SPM, Longer Report, full volume) and the WG1/WG2/WG3 full reports	reference corpus
`sources/foresight/2026-09-25-cifs-megatrends-2026.pdf` (+ twin)	2026-09-25	Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, Megatrends 2026	last
`sources/climate/2026-10-02-bundesbank-climate-roadmap-2026-27.md`	2026-10-02	Deutsche Bundesbank, Climate roadmap 2026-27, published 01.10.2026	see below
`sources/trade-policy/` (4 files)	2026-10-06	French-German non-paper of 05.10.2026 on European resilience, macroeconomic imbalances and market-distorting practices (EN Markdown + 2 PDFs), plus my own `2026-10-06-recherchenotizen-kontext-non-paper.md`	see below
`sources/ai-market/2026-04-09-prewitt-network-sourced-ai.md`	2026-10-09	Matt Prewitt (OpenMined), What Is “Network Sourced” AI? — full text, HTML→Markdown	see below
`sources/hitachi/2026-10-01-hitachi-rd-happiness-planet-fira.md` (+ `.html`)	2026-10-01	Hitachi R&D news release on Happiness Planet FIRA, a multi-agent AI service — scraped webpage	⟨added 2026-10-19⟩

⟨Added 2026-10-05. The Bundesbank roadmap is new since the last lint and in the same un-ingested state, but it differs from the other three in two ways worth recording. It is filed correctly. It opens with a four-line provenance header — source URL, retrieval date, extraction method, publisher — and states explicitly “HTML, text-extracted; no PDF offered by the publication server”. That turns what looks like the same no-PDF deviation as the AR6 bundle into a documented absence rather than an unexplained one, and it is the convention the rest of sources/ should follow. Its consumer is less obvious. The wiki’s sustainable-finance material is thin and a central bank’s own decarbonisation plan is not evidently input to any live question; unlike the GHGP RFI it is not input-shaped for anything in progress. It belongs behind GHGP AMI in the queue, and the question of what it is for applies to it as much as to IPCC and CIFS.⟩

⟨Added 2026-10-12 — two more, and one of them jumps the queue.

The trade-policy bundle opens a subject area the wiki has never touched: EU trade defence and economic security. The non-paper proposes a new instrument regulating access to the single market, country-agnostic, activated under reverse-qualified-majority comitology — i.e. fast by design. ⟨Inference: its relevance here is not the trade politics but the shape. The wiki’s product-level carbon regulation page already argues that the interesting move is to “harmonise the data layer rather than the regulatory designs that sit on it”; a market-access instrument that must decide, per product and per origin, whether a distortion is present is another consumer of exactly that layer — and it names AI, semiconductors, critical raw materials and battery supply chains as derisking priorities, which is the DPP perimeter. Whether that connection is worth a page or is a coincidence of vocabulary is an ingest conversation, not a lint finding.⟩ Note the filing: the research notes alongside it are my own and say so — see item 13.

The Prewitt piece goes first of the six. It is short (one essay), it is already in Markdown, and it is the only item in this backlog that bears directly on a claim the wiki is actively making. Data Commons currently records “two independent arrivals at the same architecture” — the ICC Review from regulation, GEO BON from biodiversity. This is a third, from the AI-training-data side: private repositories that “titrate” insights outward through a protocol layer enforcing attribution, consent and control, with stewards setting the release rules — and it reaches for the same instrument family SINE does, naming secure enclaves, differential privacy and compute-to-data explicitly (the last being Ocean Protocol’s own term). ⟨Inference: and it disagrees with SINE on the one point that matters most. The essay puts governance second — “the first generation of network-sourced AI will run through technical guarantees”, with standards bodies and collectives arriving later to “tame the wild west”. The whole of Ostrom’s design principles and the Data Commons framework is an argument that the governance layer is not a later accretion. That is a real, citable counterposition from an aligned party — and the wiki has recorded the agreements of its two previous independent arrivals without ever finding one that disagrees about sequencing. It should not stay un-ingested on a backlog list.⟩⟩

Why the GHGP one goes first of the remaining five. It is not a new subject area — it is the foundation under everything the wiki already says about carbon. It proposes restructuring corporate GHG reporting from one inventory into four statements (physical inventory, market-based inventory, GHG impact, non-GHG indicators), the third of which is consequential rather than attributional. ⟨Inference: that is the same attributional/consequential seam the ICC Review works, arrived at by the incumbent standard-setter rather than a challenger, and with Phase 2 live it is input-shaped in exactly the way item 1 is. A SINE response to ICC written without knowing what GHGP is concurrently proposing risks arguing against a position the field is already leaving.⟩

It would also close a page gap. The GHG Protocol is referenced on nine wiki pages — PACT’s methodology conforms to it, the ICC Review assesses against it, Heiss and Man & Kleppmann both build on it — and has no canonical page. It is the most-cited external standard in this wiki and the only one with no entity page of its own. That gap has been invisible to six consecutive lints because nothing links to a page that does not exist.

⟨Note on the climate bundle — two convention deviations, recorded not corrected, since sources/ is immutable. (1) Five of the seven files (syr-longer-report, syr-spm, wg1, wg2, wg3) are Markdown with no PDF original in the repository; only syr-full-volume has both. For those five the wiki’s “cite against the twin, keep the immutable original” rule has no original to fall back on. (2) The twins sit flat in sources/climate/ rather than in per-document <slug>/ folders, so their embedded image references (_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg and similar) resolve to nothing. Same shape as the FNG deviation in item 7, and equally cosmetic for text — but worth knowing before anyone cites a figure from AR6.⟩

Done looks like: six ingests, one at a time. Revised order as of 2026-10-12: Prewitt first (cheapest, and it contradicts a live wiki claim), then GHGP AMI after the ICC FAQ (item 2), which remains the prerequisite for item 1. The IPCC, CIFS, Bundesbank and trade-policy items need a conversation about what they are for before reading: none has an obvious consumer among the wiki’s existing pages, and AR6 in particular is 50 MB of Markdown that will not be read whole.

⟨Lint 2026-10-12 — the rate, stated plainly. Since the 2026-09-28 lint first named this item, one source has been ingested (iLEAP, 2026-10-01) and three have arrived (Bundesbank, trade-policy, Prewitt). The backlog has grown from three to six while being worked. ⟨Inference: at this ratio the list is not a queue, it is an archive, and the honest options are to raise the ingest rate or to mark some of these as deliberately-acquired-not-to-be-read — the same disposal the wiki already applies to dossier-only findings in item 9. Four of the six have no identified consumer; that is the real finding, not the count.⟩⟩

⟨Lint 2026-10-19 — the count was wrong, and the week disproved the explanation.

Seven, not six. The Happiness Planet FIRA release has been in sources/ since 2026-10-01, un-ingested, and was never on this list: it arrived inside sources/hitachi/ and was therefore described in item 13’s prose — as “a genuine raw source”, correctly — rather than counted here. ⟨Inference: the backlog was split across two items by the accident of which directory a file landed in, and this page is the only place that claims to hold the whole count. Added above. It is also the one Hitachi source the Hitachi week did not ingest, which is itself informative: eight documents were taken in because someone sent them with a question attached, and this one sat because nobody asked anything of it.⟩

The capacity explanation is dead. Between 14 and 16 October the wiki ingested eight sources in four days — the heaviest ingest run in its history. None of them was from this list. The seven here have now been passed over by a run four times their size. ⟨Inference: whatever keeps this backlog unread, it is not throughput. It is that none of these seven has a requester. Every source ingested since 2026-10-14 arrived from Tell Münzing with a decision hanging on it; every source on this list was acquired by me against a general sense that it would matter. That is the distinction worth acting on, and it points at retirement for most of the list rather than at scheduling.⟩

Prewitt is the exception and stays first. It is the only item here that contradicts a live wiki position (governance sequencing against the Data Commons and Ostrom pages) rather than merely adding to one. A disagreement is a requester of a kind. It has now been first in the queue for one week without being read.⟩

⟨Extended 2026-11-02 by the lint, with two arrivals that were in no register — not this item, not index.md, not log.md, and cited nowhere:

Bundle	Filed	What it is	Priority
~~`sources/standards/2026-10-29-pact-data-exchange-protocol-v2.2.md`~~	2026-10-29	PACT Technical Specifications for PCF Data Exchange v2.2 — 2,421 lines, native Markdown, no conversion needed. Source 3 of 3 in Martin Pompéry’s PACT bundle	✅ ingested 2026-11-06 → page
`sources/standards/2026-05-22-gbz-185.1-2026-agent-interconnection-general-architecture/`	2026-10-12	GB/Z 185.1—2026, Artificial intelligence — Agent interconnection — Part 1: General architecture — Chinese national guiding technical document, 313 lines, manually transcribed from page images (no PDF offered by the registry), with a full provenance header	see below

These two break the ⟨Inference⟩ above, which held that what keeps this backlog unread is the absence of a requester. The Tech Specs have a requester — Martin Pompéry handed over three documents on 2026-10-29, two were ingested within three days, and this one stopped. It is also the one the two ingested pages keep pointing at: papers/pact-network-vision-paper-2022.md states in writing that it anticipates “the Methodology v2 and Tech Specs v2.2 ingests that follow this one”, and the Vision Paper’s open questions about identity, authentication and auditing are answered — or not — in the data model and REST API that only this document contains.

The GB/Z is the worse miss. It sat unregistered for three weeks, and on 2026-10-26 the ACN ingest wrote concepts/agent-protocol-interoperability.md — the O(n²) problem, protocol convergence, exactly this subject — from an entirely different source, without it. A national standard for agent interconnection is not an addendum to that page; it is a second, state-backed answer to the same question, and the page currently reads as though only one answer exists. ⟨Inference: the retirement logic above does not apply to either of these. Both have a live wiki page waiting for them.⟩⟩

Update ⟨2026-11-06, PACT Tech Specs v2.2 ingested⟩ — nine to eight

Ingested on request from Martin Pompéry, the day after the status review. New page: Technical Specifications for PCF Data Exchange v2.2.0; six existing pages updated (PACT/Pathfinder Network, Vision Paper, Data Quality & Verification, the confidentiality gap, decision-grade criteria, DPP) plus item 19 below. The PACT bundle of 2026-10-29 is now complete: all three documents ingested.

⟨Inference: this confirms the 2026-10-19 reading from the other direction. The item that moved is the one with a named requester who asked for it; nothing on the requester-less part of the list moved in the same period, and nothing will. The honest next step for the remaining eight is still the decision the 2026-10-12 lint asked for and has not received — Prewitt and GHGP AMI scheduled, the other five retired as deliberately-acquired-not-to-be-read — not another count.⟩

12. Unanswerable from sources: does the “Internet of Emissions Data” converge, and why is there no cryptography in it?

Raised by Elinor (iLEAP ingest, at Martin Pompéry’s request), 2026-10-01 · Status: open

The iLEAP Technical Specifications v1.1.0-draft.2 are the first primary iLEAP source in the wiki. Two questions they raise and cannot answer, both for Tell Münzing:

One network, or sector networks? v1.1.0 deprecates the PACT Data Exchange Protocol binding and schedules its removal in v2.0.0, replacing it with a standalone iLEAP API. The stated cause is PACT’s own release management — the v2 specification family was sunset on 1 April 2026 — not a disagreement on substance, and the PACT mapping tables are retained. But the practical effect is that the two standards SINE co-built no longer share a wire, and semantic interoperability with PACT is now stated as an aspiration for future releases rather than a property. ⟨Inference: “Internet of Emissions Data” is SINE’s own framing for iLEAP (per Tell Münzing’s LinkedIn chronology). Whether that means one network or a federation of sector-specific networks joined by mapping tables is a strategy question neither document addresses, and the answer governs how much of PACT’s network effect iLEAP inherits versus has to rebuild.⟩
Why aggregation and not cryptography? §3.4 names the constraint explicitly — parties “decide to share an aggregated report instead of TCE-level data, due to privacy or competition concerns” — and §4.4 confirms the mechanism is lossy by design: “once Aggregated Emissions Data is exchanged, it is no longer possible to derive more granular (i.e., TCE-level) data from it.” That is the confidentiality gap diagnosed from the field, and the answer chosen is the lossiest of the three the ICC Review lists. The specification contains no cryptographic mechanism at all — no MPC, no ZK, no selective disclosure — in a standard SINE co-authored, whose first project (March 2021, with Cozero) was “the first carbon benchmarking tool using secure Multi-Party Computing”, and whose CCTI work is cryptographic trust infrastructure. ⟨Inference: an absence this specific is hard to read as oversight. Either the cryptography was judged not deployable at this layer, or it was judged not wanted by the implementers — and which of the two it is changes what item 1’s response to ICC can honestly claim.⟩

Also still open from this ingest: the Smart Freight Centre partnership, the 2025 founding date and the “15+ companies” adoption figure still rest only on Tell Münzing’s LinkedIn profile plus the Hypothesenpapier. A Smart Freight Centre primary source remains needed — the specification documents the standard, not the partnership.

⟨2026-10-26 — the second question is no longer about emissions data.⟩ The ACN white paper, a networking document with no connection to this field, states the confidentiality requirement at least as well as the ICC Review does and answers it with authorisation, policy enforcement and audit logging. That is the third unconnected community to arrive at the requirement and not reach for the instrument. The generalised version is now item 19; this item keeps the iLEAP-specific question for Tell Münzing.

Done looks like: both questions put to Tell Münzing and the answers filed on iLEAP and confidentiality gap; separately, one Smart Freight Centre source ingested.

13. The Hitachi engagement — from outside the wiki to its largest cluster

Raised by Elinor (lint), 2026-10-05 · Status: open — the underlying pattern recurred on 2026-10-06, and this time it came with its own antidote

⟨Lint 2026-10-12. A third self-authored document was filed into sources/ this week: sources/trade-policy/2026-10-06-recherchenotizen-kontext-non-paper.md, research notes I compiled for Martin Pompéry via four parallel web-search subagents. So the structural problem in (a) is unchanged and now has three instances rather than two — sources/ is accumulating our own output.

But it is filed the way the 2026-10-05 lint asked for, one day after that lint, and the difference is worth recording precisely because it shows what the remedy looks like in practice. The file’s own opening lines read: “eigene, zusammengetragene Rechercheergebnisse (Elinor, 2026-10-06), keine Primärquelle … Zitierbar nur als Rechercheprotokoll — wo eine Aussage für eine Wiki-Seite tragend wird, soll die darunterliegende Primärquelle direkt geprüft und zitiert werden.” Every claim carries a URL and a retrieval date; it states where EUR-Lex returned a bot challenge and marks those URLs “nicht fetch-verifiziert”; and it says explicitly that unfindable things were left unfilled rather than filled in.

⟨Inference: that is the laundering loop from (d) closed at the source. The Hitachi memo was dangerous because nothing in the file told a future reader it was ours; this one cannot be mistaken for a primary source by anyone who opens it, and it pre-emptively refuses the citation it would otherwise invite. The layer violation is cosmetic once the marker is inside the file. ⟨Inference: which suggests the operator decision in (1) below is not really move-or-leave but what header must a self-authored file in sources/ carry — and the Recherchenotizen header is a usable template for it: who, when, on whose instruction, what it may be cited as, and what was not verified.⟩⟩⟩

On 2026-10-01 a directory sources/hitachi/ appeared with four files. One is a genuine raw source: the Hitachi R&D news release on Happiness Planet FIRA (.html original plus .md twin), a scraped webpage about a multi-agent AI service. The other two are our own work products:

File	What it is	Written for
`2026-10-01-questions-for-hitachi-rail-cso.md`	Interview question set for a first scoping call with Dr. Shibasaki, CSO Hitachi Rail	Tell Münzing, to be aligned with Katharina Roehrig
`2026-10-01-sine-hitachi-fit-for-katharina.md`	German positioning memo: why SINE fits Hitachi Rail, plus three English paragraphs for forwarding	Katharina Roehrig

Four separate problems, in increasing order of severity.

(a) They are in the wrong layer. sources/ is the immutable raw layer — material that arrives from outside and is cited against. These were authored here. The fit memo says so in its own second line: “Grundlage: Voranalyse Hitachi Rail vom selben Tag plus die SINE-Seiten im Strategie-Wiki.” It is a wiki derivative filed as a wiki input. The persona’s rule about dossiers exists to prevent exactly this — a dossier is never itself the citable source — and this is that rule’s inverse: not a dossier mistaken for a source, but a deliverable filed into the source layer, where the distinction is no longer visible at all. Anything citing sources/hitachi/2026-10-01-sine-hitachi-fit-for-katharina.md would satisfy traceability mechanically — the path resolves — while citing our own prose.

(b) The analysis they rest on is not in the repository. Both documents cite a “2026-10-01 pre-analysis (six research streams, sources in sources/hitachi/)”. There is no such file, in sources/ or dossiers/, and the six streams are not represented anywhere. This is the second week running that a work product has cited an intermediate analysis that was never committed — the 2026-09-28 lint found a dossier pointing at a nonexistent notes/ file. One instance was an accident; two is a pattern: analysis is being produced, used, and discarded without landing.

(c) Its load-bearing facts have no source behind them. The memo and the question set turn on figures that appear nowhere else in the repository and have no primary document: 76 suppliers = 14.93 % of Scope 3 Category 1, 864,424 tCO₂e (attributed to Hitachi Rail’s FY24 Sustainability Statement); the HTR 412 “Blues” Social Product Declaration (38 component suppliers, 8 with public reports, 11 of the remaining 26 responding, raw steel/aluminium/ silicon at “very high risk”); “Enhanced by HMAX” sensing in all new rolling stock from 2027, announced InnoTrans 22.09.2026; an ISO 14067 PCF concluding FY26; Hitachi Corporate as a PACT participant (with Nomura Research Institute, EcoAssist-Pro listed Pathfinder-conformant) while Hitachi Rail is not; Alstom’s 40 %-by-2030 recyclate target at 27.3 %; the NS DDNG material-passport requirement; EuroSpec. The one ingested Hitachi source supports exactly one claim in the memo — the Engelbart intelligence amplifier framing in §6, which is genuinely in the FIRA release. Everything else is unsourced.

(d) An inference was hardened on the way out, and the hardening points back at us. iLEAP carries, in an explicit ⟨Inference⟩ marker: “The document does not state who operates these hosts; the domain is the only evidence.” The memo tells Katharina, flatly: “SINE betreibt Konformitätsgate und Referenz-API” — SINE operates the conformance gate and reference API. Same for the Smart Freight Centre partnership, which the wiki flags as resting only on a LinkedIn profile and which the memo states as established fact. The marker was dropped at the wiki→deliverable boundary.

⟨Inference: (a) and (d) compose into a loop worth naming. An inference leaves the wiki, loses its marker in a client-facing document, and that document is then filed into sources/. If a future ingest reads sources/hitachi/ as raw material — which is what that directory means — the inference comes back as a sourced claim, laundered through our own deliverable. Nothing has gone wrong yet, because nothing cites these files. The window to prevent it is now and it closes the first time something does.⟩

And the plainest fact of all: no wiki page mentions Hitachi. grep -ril hitachi wiki/ returns nothing. A live business-development engagement, with named counterparties, a diagnosis stated in the wiki’s own core vocabulary — the memo concludes “Verhandlungsversagen, nicht Koordinationsversagen”, a direct application of coordination vs. bargaining failure to a real company — and a wiki that knows none of it. That diagnosis is a genuine addition: an OEM that can measure and can compute, blocked purely by a supplier’s rational unwillingness to disclose to its own bargaining counterparty, is the cleanest corporate-side instance of the bargaining- failure class the wiki has. It currently exists only in a German memo for one person.

Done looks like: three things, and only the first is mine to do alone.

The two work products recorded as derivatives rather than sources — sources/ is immutable, so this is a move, not an edit, and an operator decision: either relocate them to dossiers/ with a note in log.md, or leave them and accept a standing exception documented here. Precedent for the second option: the FNG filing (item 7) and the climate bundle (item 11) are both recorded deviations rather than corrections.
The missing pre-analysis located and filed — or confirmed lost, which is the answer to the same question still open from 2026-09-28 about notes/.
The Hitachi Rail FY24 Sustainability Statement and the HTR 412 SPD ingested as actual sources, after which a market-competitors/ or people-partners/ page for Hitachi Rail can carry the bargaining-failure diagnosis with citations behind it.

⟨Update 2026-10-15 — partly closed.⟩ Tell Münzing supplied the Hitachi Integrated Report 2026, ingested the same day as sources/hitachi/2026-10-15-hitachi-integrated-annual-report-2026.md → paper page, Hitachi, Ltd., Mobility, Customer Zero, plus a worked gap case added to verifiable carbon accounting.

What that changes, item by item:

The plainest fact is no longer true. The wiki now has three Hitachi pages and a primary source behind them, and the bargaining-failure diagnosis has somewhere to live besides a German memo.
(c) is registered, and one item is now closed. Every unsourced figure is listed as unsourced in one place — Hitachi Rail § what the wiki asserts without a source. The report disconfirms nothing but it supports none of them either. ⟨Second update, same day:⟩ Tell Münzing supplied the URL of Hitachi Rail’s “Enhanced by HMAX” press release (Berlin, 22 September 2026, published 24 September), which states the 2027 sensing commitment verbatim — the memo’s InnoTrans attribution was exactly right. The single most load-bearing claim in the memo is now sourced. Step 3 above (FY24 Sustainability Statement, HTR 412 SPD) is still owed; the ISO 14067 PCF and the PACT-participation claim remain unsourced.
(a), (b) and (d) are untouched. The two work products are still in sources/; the pre-analysis is still missing; the hardened iLEAP inference is still in the memo. The operator decision in (1) is still open, and the Recherchenotizen header remains the template.
Three findings from the report correct the memo rather than confirm it: Customer Zero is not claimed for Mobility, circular economy sits in Connective Industries, and Mobility’s agentic AI is in engineering and bidding, not procurement.

⟨Update, Lint 2026-10-19 — the item has inverted, and three of its four problems survived the inversion.⟩ The title above was “a live Hitachi engagement that exists entirely outside the wiki” and is retitled today, because between 14 and 16 October the wiki took in eight sources on this engagement and gained roughly nineteen pages. Hitachi is now the largest single cluster in the wiki. The original complaint is answered in full.

What that does not change, item by item:

(c) is further closed, and the 2026-10-15 update above is itself one ingest out of date. It records the HTR 412 SPD as “still owed”; the SPD was partly sourced the same day, after that line was written, via the ROLLINGSTOCK Agency trade article of 13.12.2023 — EPD International as partner, 23 supplier countries, the 1–4 risk scale, validity to 2028. Still unsourced from the memo’s list: the 38 / 8 / 11-of-26 supplier breakdown and the “very high risk” ratings (both sit in a figure image and in the SPD report itself, which we do not hold), the ISO 14067 PCF concluding FY26, the 76 suppliers = 14.93 % / 864,424 tCO₂e figure, and Hitachi Corporate’s PACT participation. The FY24 Sustainability Statement remains the single document that would close most of them.
(a) recurred a fourth time, three days after this lint proposed a fix for it. sources/hitachi/2026-10-15-questions-hitachi-consolidated.md is SINE-authored, filed into sources/ on 2026-10-15 and logged honestly as a work product rather than an ingest. Its header states who merged it, when, for whom, and out of which two predecessors — three of the five elements the 2026-10-12 lint named. The two it omits are the two that do the work: what the file may be cited as, and what in it is unverified. ⟨Inference: that is not carelessness but the predictable outcome of a template that exists only as a sentence inside a lint entry. The Recherchenotizen header worked because its author had just been told; the next author will be told by the file layout or not at all. This strengthens the operator decision in (1) from move-or-leave to move-or-leave plus a required header, and argues for the header living somewhere a writer passes through — a sources/README.md, say — rather than in the lint record.⟩
(b) has its first located instance rather than a lost one. The revised strategy paper written for Tell Münzing on 2026-10-15 is at /workspace/agent/hitachi/ — outside the repository, so outside its history, but findable, which the 2026-09-28 notes/ file and the 2026-10-01 pre-analysis were not. Three instances in three weeks; this is a standing pattern, not three accidents.
One counter-example worth recording, because it is the discipline working. A third-party strategic reading of the Integrated Report (ChatGPT-authored, supplied 2026-10-15) was deliberately not taken into sources/ — Tell Münzing’s decision — and the two figures worth keeping from it were verified against the primary document we hold before being written down. That is exactly the handling (a) and (d) ask for, taken by the operator unprompted.
(d) is untouched. The hardened iLEAP inference is still in the memo.

14. How concentrated is the NatCat model layer, actually?

Raised by Elinor, 2026-10-14 · Status: open

Sounding the Alarm states that the (re)insurance industry “collectively rel[ies] on a small number of base case models” for natural-catastrophe risk, and gives no number, no vendor, and no market share. The wiki now carries a whole page — the NatCat model layer — whose central argument is that this concentration converts a local incentive problem into an industry-wide one, and whose only evidence is that one clause in one anonymous memo.

Why it cannot rest there. The page transfers a structural finding from adtech — the rule-setting layer is not the deepest layer — onto a layer whose actual concentration is unmeasured. If the model market turns out to be genuinely plural, the page’s spine is wrong rather than merely unproven. ⟨Inference: this is also the single claim in this ingest most likely to end up in a SINE-authored document, because it is the one that makes an industry anecdote into a market-structure argument. It should not travel until it has a source that is not an anonymous memo.⟩

Explicitly out of bounds until then: naming vendors. The wiki holds ⟨Background⟩ knowledge of who the major catastrophe-model vendors are, and that is not a source. No vendor name appears on any page from this ingest, and none should until a citable one exists.

Done looks like: a primary or reputable secondary source — a supervisory publication, a market study, an academic treatment — giving (a) how many base-case models are in substantial use in European non-life and reinsurance, (b) who supplies them, (c) any supervisory view on the concentration. Solvency II internal-model approval is the obvious place a supervisor would already have had to look. An hour of bounded web research, not a programme.

A second question riding along with it: does the haircut, where it happens, sit in the model or in the usage of the model? The two have different remedies, and the memo does not say.

15. ✅ Closed: the AIST research report defining CVP

Raised by the ingest of the Hitachi Sustainability Report 2026, 2026-10-16 · Closed 2026-10-16.

Tell Münzing supplied the report as an attachment the same day. Filed at sources/hitachi/2026-04-13-h-aist-cvp-research-report.pdf (12 pp., English, Circular Value-added Productivity (CVP), H-AIST CE Lab, April 2026), converted, and ingested: page.

Outcome against the hypothesis that raised it. The question was whether CVP specifies a data-provenance requirement or assumes its inputs. Answer: it assumes them, and says so — the recommended mechanism is “a trusted, impartial third-party organization” that collects each participant’s figures and computes the ratio. No provenance requirement, no verification requirement; a role, specified, with its implementation left open. The confidentiality-gap reading is upheld and sharpened. A second limitation the report concedes — arbitrary CE segmentation — is not covered by that reading and is now its own item (18).

Still not fetched, and deliberately out of scope for now: …/news/2025/pdf/250619.pdf, …/news/2026/pdf/260318.pdf (possibly the same report under an earlier date), the 2024 Activity Report (…/en/news/2026/pdf/260119.pdf). All three were probed 2026-10-16 and return HTTP 200.

16. Un-ingested: the remaining 160 pages of the Hitachi Sustainability Report 2026

Raised by the same ingest, 2026-10-16 · Status: open

Trigger. The 163-page report was fetched for p. 36 under an agreed M scope. Ingested: the standardization chapter, the Scope 3 inventory and calculation methods, the Scope 3 target structure, and the circular economy chapter. Everything else was read only far enough to place those.

Not ingested: the Planet chapter in full (water, resources, biodiversity, chemical management), the complete ESG data tables, human capital, the Leadership/Empowerment and Diverse-perspectives chapters, governance, and the engagement/assurance sections.

Why it is worth doing, not just owed. The Scope 3 correction this ingest forced — the wiki asserted for a day that Hitachi publishes no Scope 3 figure, which was true of the Integrated Report and false of the group — is the kind of error the unread 160 pages can still contain. Any claim in the wiki of the form “Hitachi does not report X” is provisional until this document has been read through.

Done looks like. Either a full ingest, or an explicit decision that the remainder is out of scope for the engagement, recorded here.

17. ✅ Mostly closed: the H-AIST “data model standards for information on goods”

Raised by the ingest of the CE Association white paper, 2026-10-16 · Status: substantially answered the same day; a narrow residue remains open

Answer ⟨2026-10-16, from the Third Open Forum report⟩. The half is “grading for the visualization of residual value”, presented by Koshi Kamigaki (AIST) as the second of two “forms of value visualization” in the lab’s rule-making theme — see residual-value grading. It rests on a study of plastic-recycling operations, diagnoses two information failures (demand-side end-use information not reaching sorters; “information regarding product quality and provenance fails to reach stakeholders on the downstream sector”), and derives three requirements including “upstream-downstream information partnership and traceability” and interoperability “by referencing existing international standards”. The intended standardization target is named separately by Hoshino: downstream data integration plus the IEC Common Data Dictionary. That is why the earlier search failed — the half does not live in the CVP literature and would route through IEC, not ISO/TC 323.

What remains open, and is the honest residue: there is no document. Everything above is a presentation summary inside an event report — no schema, no work-item number, no publication. The sub-question “who attests a grade, and against what” is unaddressed by any source. Candidate 4 (ask Hitachi) is now the efficient move, and it has a precise question attached rather than a vague one.

What is missing. The Hitachi/AIST proposal — formally the Common Infrastructure Standards for Circular Business — has two named halves: “data model standards for information on goods, including quality-related information”, and the “Growth Level Assessment Standards … referred to as the CVP”. The second is described at length across two documents; the first is named twice and never explained. No scope, no schema, no standards venue.

Verified negative ⟨2026-10-16, on Tell Münzing’s question⟩. Searched all four documents the wiki holds on this track (white paper, April research report, Sustainability Report, Integrated Report) for “passport”, “DPP”, “declaration”, “PCDS”: zero occurrences in any of them. ISO 59040 (Product circularity data sheet) occurs exactly once, in the white paper’s appendix survey, and only to record that it carries no cost-and-value-added indicator. “Traceability” occurs once, as a third party’s surveyed indicator (#44). So the relationship between this half and the existing goods-data-model standard — or the Digital Product Passport — is not merely unstated; the vocabulary is absent. ⟨Inference: at the one point where positioning the proposal against ISO 59040 would have been natural, the authors do not. Either the half is unanchored and the vocabulary is still open, or “quality information” is a fitness-for-reuse judgement passed between firms rather than a downstream disclosure instrument. Undecidable from these sources.⟩

Why it matters, specifically. CVP runs on financial-statement items and is explicitly not a product-level metric — so it is not the layer SINE’s work touches. A data model for goods including quality information is. If that half is already being drafted somewhere, it is both the nearer collision and the nearer collaboration, and the wiki currently cannot say which. It also bears on whether CECRL’s remit is metrics only or metrics plus substrate — an open question on that page.

Done looks like. Either a source describing it (an AIST or CE Association document, or a TC 323 work item) summarised on a page, or a recorded finding that no public description exists — which is itself worth knowing before a conversation with Hitachi.

Candidate 1 eliminated ⟨2026-10-16⟩. The lab’s own June 2025 overview (page) was fetched and ingested at Tell Münzing’s request. It does not list a second half: it presents CVP as the lab’s contribution, full stop, and contains no occurrence of “quality”, “data model”, “passport”, “declaration”, “PCDS”, “traceability” or even “value network”. The verified negative now covers five sources, including the earliest and the most recent. ⟨Inference: the two-half taxonomy appears to be a framing of the 2026 proposal to the study group, not a standing description of the lab’s programme. If so, the data-model half may be newer than CVP and may not have a publication at all — which shifts the honest answer toward “no public description exists” and makes candidate 4 the efficient move.⟩

Remaining starting points, cheapest first (probed 2026-10-16, HTTP 200, not fetched):

The ISO/TC 323 work programme — is there a data-model work item at all beyond ISO 59040?
The 2024 Activity Report (…/en/news/2026/pdf/260119.pdf, 26 MB) — the lab’s work programme, thorough but expensive.
Ask Hitachi. Cheapest and most honest; and if no public description exists, that is the finding — the layer is not yet fixed.

⟨Note: the “en” news pages on this host are served with lang="ja" and the PDFs are not search-indexed, which is why these documents cannot be found by searching for their titles. The direct URLs work.⟩

18. Unaddressed by anything SINE builds: arbitrary CE segmentation

Raised by the ingest of the H-AIST CVP research report, 2026-10-16 · Status: open

The concession. §4.1.1, the authors about their own indicator: which activities are classified as CE activities “has a major influence on the results”, and for multi-business companies the definition “can easily become arbitrary — a result that may impair the comparability and explainability of CVP”. Their remedy is procedural: define it in advance, apply it consistently. §2.2 adds a second, quieter instance — intermediate goods costs are not a financial-statement line and must be reconstructed “depending on company-specific accounting practices”.

Why it is a task and not a note. This is a failure mode the SINE thesis does not cover, and the wiki should not let it blur into the one it does. Verifiable carbon accounting and the confidentiality gap argument make a reported figure faithful to the books. Neither makes the classification behind the figure honest. A multi-party protocol that computes CVP without disclosure computes an exact ratio over self-declared segmentations. If we pitch verifiability as the answer to CVP’s problems, we are overselling by exactly this amount, and a competent counterpart at Hitachi will see it.

What would resolve it. One of: (a) a defensible argument that financial anchoring constrains segmentation in practice — the Man & Kleppmann move of coupling a claim to the financial record so misreporting it requires misreporting the accounts, which may extend to segmentation because the CE ratio is applied to audited line items; (b) a clear statement that this is out of scope and belongs to assurance, not cryptography; or (c) evidence that a certification scheme in the CVP programme does address it. Today the wiki asserts (b) implicitly and has not tested (a).

Why it also matters strategically. It is the strongest remaining critique of CVP that is not ours — it is theirs. Raising it in a conversation as a shared problem, rather than as an objection, is a different posture from arriving with a solution.

19. Three communities state the confidentiality requirement and none considers cryptography — is this a demand problem?

Raised by Elinor (ACN ingest, at Martin Pompéry’s instruction to import the source), 2026-10-26 · Status: open, narrowed 2026-10-27 — the counterexample has been found; see the update at the end of this item.

The wiki now holds three independent instances of the same figure, in three domains with no contact between them:

Source	States the requirement	Answers it with
ICC Landscape Review (2026), Criterion B	yes, once	nothing — then omits it from every subsequent instrument
iLEAP v1.1.0 (2026), §3.4	yes	aggregation (`AggregatedReport`)
Li et al., ACN (2026), §7.2/§7.4	yes, as a headline research question	authorisation, policy enforcement, tamper-evident audit logs

In none of the three is the cryptographic instrument argued against. In none of the three is it mentioned. ⟨Inference: an absence that survives three domains is not three oversights. The candidate readings are different and they have different consequences for SINE:

Not known. The instrument is outside the vocabulary of these communities. Then the deficit is reach, and the response is writing and showing up where they are — which is cheap and is the kind of thing CCTI’s WP-F facilitator role is already contractually shaped for.
Known and judged not deployable at that layer. Then the deficit is engineering maturity, and the honest response is to say so and point at M5.
Known and not wanted. The parties who would have to adopt it prefer a regime they control — a log they keep — over a proof they cannot influence. Then the deficit is incentive, not technology, and no amount of better cryptography touches it.

Reading 3 is the one that would change strategy, and nothing in the wiki currently distinguishes it from reading 1.⟩

This matters beyond curiosity because it sets the honest baseline for AI Advantage and for anything item 1 claims: the comparison case is not “coordination without trust infrastructure”, it is coordination with credentialled identity and an audit log, which is what three separate communities are actually building.

Done looks like: a position — one page or one short note — that names which of the three readings SINE holds and on what evidence, with the counterexample actively looked for (a standards or networking document that does consider and reject the instrument). Until then no SINE output should describe the gap as “unsolved” when what the record supports is “unconsidered”.

Related, not the same item: the ACN paper’s architecture depends throughout on heterogeneous agents converging on a shared capability vocabulary and never asks how that happens without a central registry — an unnamed naming game, and a usable setting for the foundational-games research Martin Pompéry asked for on 2026-10-23, which remains unstarted and has no wiki page.

Update ⟨2026-10-27, OECD ingest⟩ — the counterexample exists, and it splits the question

“Done looks like” asked for a document that does consider the cryptographic instrument. OECD, Data Spaces between Co-ordination Challenges, Financial Viability and Public Policy (2026) is it — a committee-declassified OECD report that inventories four PET categories (federated learning, MPC, TEEs/confidential computing, synthetic data) in Box 3.2, makes support for them one of eight policy considerations (§5.5, “Neither alone is sufficient”), and records the G7 Industry, Digital and Technology Ministerial Declaration of December 2025 committing to advancing DFFT through the promotion of PETs.

Effect on the three readings:

Reading 1 (not known) — falsified at the policy level, not necessarily at the practitioner level. The instruments are in the vocabulary of the OECD and the G7. They were still absent from the ICC Review, iLEAP and ACN.
Reading 2 (not deployable) — partially supported, with a twist. The barriers the OECD names are computational cost, specialised expertise, and “the need for co-ordination among participants on which technologies to deploy” (Auñón et al., 2024). The third is a governance barrier, not an engineering one.
Reading 3 (not wanted) — not supported in this form. The OECD wants PETs. What it does not do is treat them as the answer: in §3.2 they “address the confidentiality dimension” but “do not address the institutional co-ordination problem of who governs, who pays and how collective value is allocated”.

⟨Inference: a fourth reading is now the best-supported one, and it is none of the original three — sequencing. Confidentiality is the second problem; the first is who governs, who pays and how collective value is allocated. A community that has not solved the first has nothing to deploy a PET into. On this reading the three communities in the table above are not failing to see the instrument; they are one layer below it. That is compatible with all three original readings being partially true at different sites, and it is testable: in any of the three, is there a settled governance arrangement that a confidentiality instrument could attach to? For iLEAP there is — which makes iLEAP the sharpest remaining instance, not the ICC Review.⟩

What this changes for SINE output. The honest framing moves from “a gap nobody has considered” to “an instrument that is considered at policy level and is blocked, by the OECD’s own account, on participants agreeing which one to deploy”. Agreeing which one is a standards problem, which is what SINE does. The pitch shape the OECD itself supplies is: the contract specifies through which PET the data must be processed, so compliance is structural rather than promised.

Revised “done looks like”: a position naming sequencing-vs-incentive as the live question, tested against iLEAP specifically — is the governance arrangement there settled enough that the absence of a confidentiality instrument is a choice rather than a prerequisite not yet met? Recorded in full on the confidentiality gap, addendum 2026-10-27.

Update ⟨2026-10-29, PACT Network Vision Paper ingest⟩ — a fourth instance, and it is ours

PACT, June 2022) is a fourth instance of the figure, and the one that cannot be explained by unfamiliarity. It states the requirement at full strength — the “data-sharing dilemma”, each organization “sole owner […] with full data control over who has access to any data point”, data that “protects organizations from any possible back-tracing of product-specific information” — and answers it with a governance framework, legal frameworks, identity management and fraud prevention, and data minimisation (“only the minimum necessary amount of data is exchanged”). Cryptography, encryption, zero-knowledge, MPC and proof do not occur in the document.

Source	States the requirement	Answers it with
PACT Vision Paper (2022)	yes, as the core problem	governance + legal frameworks + data minimisation

Why this one is different: SINE is the named technology partner on it, and SINE’s own first project — March 2021, with Cozero — was “the first carbon benchmarking tool using secure Multi-Party Computing”. The instrument was inside the technology partner’s vocabulary fifteen months before the document was published, and did not reach the document.

⟨Inference: this is evidence against reading 1 (not known) at the practitioner level too, and it is the cleanest available test of the sequencing reading raised by the OECD update above. In June 2022 PACT had no settled governance arrangement — the Network did not exist, the Framework’s v2 was “in development”, and the paper’s whole second half is about the process for agreeing things. On the sequencing reading, that is exactly when a confidentiality instrument has nothing to attach to, and its absence is predicted rather than puzzling. If so, the question for PACT today is whether the prerequisite has since been met — the governance arrangement now exists — and the instrument still has not been reached for. That is a different and more answerable question than the one this item started with, and the Tech Specs v2.2 ingest that follows should be read for it.⟩

Also on record from the same source: the 2022 Data Commons whitepaper describes the Pathfinder Network as using “strong encryption”; PACT’s own paper, two months later, does not. Contradiction held open on the PACT page.

Update ⟨2026-11-01, Pathfinder Framework v2 ingest⟩ — fifth instance, and the sequencing reading gets direct evidence

PACT, January 2023), 78 pages, SINE named as technology partner on page 2 and in the back matter.

Source	States the requirement	Answers it with
PACT Framework v2 (Jan 2023)	yes — “confidential” ×3 (§6.2), “secure exchange” (§1.3), a padlock icon on the value “Data confidentiality and sovereignty”	adjustable access rights + per-exchange approval; one optional, non-mandatory digital signature

What makes this the most precise instance so far:

Zero cryptographic vocabulary in 78 pages. A grep for encrypt | cryptograph | zero-knowledge | privacy-enhancing | multi-party | anonymi | pseudonym | differential privacy | secure comput returns nothing. The Vision Paper was 11 pages; this is a full technical guidance document with a dedicated data-exchange section, and the vocabulary still does not appear.
The value is defined down. Figure 19 lists “Data confidentiality and sovereignty” as one of six key values, printed with a padlock, and defines it as: “Data owners have the flexibility to exchange different levels of data granularity with adjustable access rights and can approve each exchange.” That is an authorization model. The June 2022 formulation — “protects organizations from any possible back-tracing of product-specific information” — is a stronger claim, and it is gone.
The one technical control is optional and about the wrong property. Appendix B: “Digital record signature — Digital signature covering the full PCF … Mandatory: No”. Authenticity, not confidentiality. It does not survive into Methodology v3 at all.
SINE’s own self-description in the same document is “ready-to-use governance tools and open-source software” — not PETs.

⟨Inference: the last point is the one that moves the item. The sequencing reading (OECD update above) says the confidentiality instrument had nothing to attach to yet. The alternative — that SINE held the instrument and the document failed to reach for it — is weakened by SINE describing its own offer, in that very document, as governance tooling and open-source software. The record is now consistent: SINE’s cryptographic work sits either side of the PACT period (Cozero/MPC March 2021; CCTI from July 2026), and during PACT it was selling governance. That is sequencing in SINE’s own history, not only in the ecosystem’s.

This also narrows the still-live question rather than closing it. Across 2022 → 2023 → 2025 the governance arrangement went from non-existent to settled (the Network launched, the Framework stabilised, v3 shipped), and the confidentiality instrument did not appear at any point — it regressed, since the optional signature attribute was dropped. The prerequisite has now been met and the instrument still has not been reached for. On the three original readings that pushes weight toward reading 3 (not wanted) for the PACT case specifically. Source 3 of this ingest, the Tech Specs v2.2 — written by SINE, per Martin Pompéry — is the direct test: if the confidentiality instrument exists anywhere in PACT, it is in the protocol layer, not the methodology layer. Read it for exactly this.⟩

Revised “done looks like” for the PACT strand: after the Tech Specs ingest, a one-paragraph verdict on whether PACT’s confidentiality promise is (a) implemented in the protocol, (b) deliberately scoped to access control, or (c) unimplemented — and whether SINE, as the party that wrote the protocol, chose that.

Update ⟨2026-11-06, Tech Specs v2.2 ingest⟩ — the verdict the PACT strand was waiting for: (b), and it is written down

Technical Specifications for PCF Data Exchange v2.2.0 (April 2024), 2,421 lines. The sixth instance, and the one that settles the PACT strand of this item.

The answer is (b): deliberately scoped to access control — and the scoping is explicit, not implicit. §7.2.1 declares authentication and access management, credentials management, and logging (access logs and audit trails) out of scope of the protocol; they belong to “solutions” built on top. What remains is TLS, OAuth2 client credentials, Bearer tokens, optional OIDC discovery, and a source-field check on inbound events. A ProductFootprint is plain JSON; assurance is an unsigned claim; cryptography, encryption, signature, proof, zero-knowledge and multi-party computation occur zero times. Confidentiality is access control that hosts merely SHOULD implement, and non-disclosure is a first-class specified outcome (§4.1.2: “up to the discretion of each data owner”; AccessDenied).

Why this instance is stronger than the five before it. The Tech Specs are an interoperability profile ⟨Per Martin Pompéry, 2026-11-06⟩ — the document’s entire method is picking up existing standards and constraining them: OData, CloudEvents, OAuth2, OIDC, RFC 8288, URN, UN CPC, ISO 3166, UUIDv4. JSON Web Signature was available on identical terms. It was not picked. ⟨Inference: for the first five instances, “the vocabulary wasn’t there” was a live reading. Here it is not available — the document demonstrates, on every other page, exactly how cheap adoption of an existing standard is for it. This is a selection decision with a date.⟩

On the “whether SINE chose that” half: not established, and the wiki should stop implying it. What the document shows is that comments go to public-dev@pathfinder.sine.dev and that every normative example runs against api.pathfinder.sine.dev returning server: Pathfinder — SINE operates the reference implementation the specification is written against. Authorship of the specification text is nowhere stated in it. “Written by SINE, per Martin Pompéry” remains an oral attribution; the documentary record supports technology partner and reference host, which is weaker.

What this does to the three readings. For PACT specifically, reading 1 (not known) is now dead, and reading 2 (known, judged not deployable) is hard to sustain against a document that profiles eight other standards without difficulty. That leaves reading 3 (known and not wanted) or a fourth that the scope statement itself suggests: known, and deliberately pushed below the interoperability boundary — on the view that a network standard should specify the envelope and let solutions compete on trust features. ⟨Inference: the fourth reading is more charitable and more dangerous for SINE’s thesis, because it says the layer SINE sells into was defined as the place where interoperability stops. If trust features are a solution-level differentiator by design, there is no network-level buyer for them — and the strategic question is not “how do we supply the instrument” but “who has standing to move that boundary”. That is item 1’s question, reached from the protocol instead of from the ICC.⟩

PACT strand closed; the item stays open. The original question — three communities, one absent instrument, demand problem or not — is untouched for the non-PACT instances. What is now settled is that in PACT’s case the absence is documented, deliberate and located at a named scope boundary.

20. Undisclosed: what moved between Connective Industries and DSS in the FY2025 segment restatement?

Raised by Elinor (Inspire 2027 deck ingest, source supplied by Tell Münzing), 2026-11-01 · Status: open — a question for Hitachi, not answerable from any source held here.

The CEO’s Inspire 2027 progress deck reports the two digital headline numbers of FY2025:

Connective Industries Lumada revenue ratio 34% → 43%
Digital Systems & Services Lumada revenue ratio 46% → 62%

Both carry footnotes that the other two sectors do not (p. 10, nn. 1–2): “Calculated based on revenue excluding certain business structural reform operations” and “Based on the new reporting segment structure”. Energy and Mobility are unmarked. Separately, every group Lumada figure in the deck (pp. 2, 7, 8, 22) carries: “Reflection of revenue consolidation offsets started from this period” — in the same year the group ratio moves 29% → 40%.

What is not stated anywhere in the deck:

What the new reporting segment structure is — which businesses moved between CI and DSS, and in which direction.
Whether FY2024’s 34% and 46% are restated on the new structure or left on the old one. (The footnote is attached to both years’ bars, which suggests restated, but the deck does not say so.)
The size of the denominator effect from excluding home appliances (CI) and ATM (DSS), both named as portfolio transformation on the same slide.
What “revenue consolidation offsets” removes in yen — i.e. how much intra-group digital revenue, e.g. DSS selling into Energy or Mobility projects, was previously counted in the Lumada total.

Why it matters here. ⟨Inference: the DSS/CI split is the structural question Tell Münzing asked, and these two ratios are the evidence anyone would reach for. Until (1)–(4) are answered, they cannot be read as organic digital growth: some unknown share is a redrawn boundary, a shrunken denominator and a netting change. The direction of the distortion is not even known — a reclassification could flatter either sector.⟩

How it could close. Hitachi’s FY2025 annual securities report (有価証券報告書) or Form 20-F segment note would state the restatement; so would the Investor Day materials of 10 June 2026, where both Noriharu Amiya (CI) and Jun Abe (DSS) presented. Failing that, it is a direct question to ask in any conversation with either sector.

Partial attempt ⟨2026-11-01⟩ — one of those two documents is now in sources/ and it does not close this. Jun Abe’s DSS deck (10 June 2026) was ingested. It restates the 46% → 62% ratio and plans 70% for FY2026, but defines no segment structure, restates no prior year explicitly, and gives no offset figure. (1)–(4) all remain open. Two things it does add:

The FY2027 Lumada ratio target moved from “approx. 65%” to 75–80% (p. 2), revised upward mid-plan. ⟨Two readings, unresolved: organic acceleration, or a denominator shrunk by the segment redraw and the ATM exit. The deck does not distinguish them, which is this task restated at the target level.⟩
The ATM exit now has a date: integration of the ATM business with OKI is scheduled to start October 2026 (p. 20). Confirmed as an event; its revenue effect is still not quantified, so (3) is unchanged.

Amiya’s CI deck of the same day is still not in sources/ and is the next cheapest thing to fetch for this task.

21. Three entity pages the Röchling cluster links to do not exist

Raised 2026-11-05, during the EEA ingest.

Wechsel-Geld and the circularity definition problem link to three pages that were never written:

~~organization/roechling-stiftung.md~~ — written 2026-11-06 during the 06 ingest: roechling-stiftung.md.
organization/circle-economy.md — Marvin Nusseck’s organisation, the source of the definition problem, the “2 % of global commercial investment” figure and the EUR 25.4trn linear value-loss figure. An interested party whose interest should be stated on its own page.
people-partners/silke-stremlau.md — Finance for Transition, the EU-taxonomy critique, the 90-10 rule and the pension-fund VC comparison.

Three further Röchling sources sit in sources/roechling/ with no wiki page at all: POLYPROBLEM 06 Circularity Code (2023-12), POLYPROBLEM 07 Die Kluft im Kopf (2025-07) and the Röchling Group sustainability report. They were analysed in chat for Tell Münzing on 2026-11-04 under an explicit chat-only scope and written up as a dossier, which is not a citable source. The findings in that dossier — the supply/demand/ capital division of labour across the three reports, and the foundation reversing its own explanation between 2023 (“Es ist eine Frage der Haltung”) and 2025 (“keine individuelle Entscheidung … kollektive Verantwortung”) — are therefore currently recorded nowhere citable.

Decision ⟨Tell Münzing, 2026-11-06, Slack: “06 07 ingest”⟩: ingest both reports properly.

Progress.

✅ POLYPROBLEM 06 Circularity Code ingested 2026-11-06 → polyproblem-circularity-code-2023.md, nine concept pages updated, index and log written. Its findings are now citable from the wiki rather than only from the dossier.
✅ organization/roechling-stiftung.md written as part of that ingest.
⏳ POLYPROBLEM 07 Die Kluft im Kopf — next, same method.
⏳ organization/circle-economy.md and people-partners/silke-stremlau.md — still missing; both are Wechsel-Geld entities, not 06/07 entities, so they are not closed by this ingest.
⏳ Röchling Group sustainability report — still no page, and no instruction to ingest it.

What would now close it: 07 ingested, plus the two remaining entity pages (and a decision on the group sustainability report).

Closed

✅ Ingest: Verifiable Carbon Accounting in Supply Chains (Heiss et al., 2023)

Raised by Martin Pompéry, 2026-08-17 · Closed 2026-08-17.

Saved to sources/whitepapers/2026-08-17-verifiable-carbon-accounting-in-supply-chains.md and ingested. Pages: the paper, Jonathan Heiss, Verifiable Carbon Accounting. Outcome: the confidentiality-gap thesis is confirmed and sharpened, not overturned — the mechanism existed three years before the ICC Review, which records no contribution from it.

✅ Ingest: Emission Impossible (Man & Kleppmann, 2026)

Raised by Martin Pompéry, 2026-08-17 · Closed 2026-08-17.

Saved as PDF plus supplied Markdown twin under sources/whitepapers/2026-08-17-emission-impossible-verifiable-cloud-emissions*. Page: the paper. First primary source in the wiki on the CCTI Co-PI’s own research output.

Method note. Martin instructed (2026-08-17): “Du musst zwingend beide Papiere (Kleppmann, Heiss) zusammen betrachten.” Each paper was read individually and in full — no batch reading — and each has its own summary page and its own source attribution; the joint analysis lives on the shared concept page. Analysis joint, sourcing separate.

SINE Strategy Wiki

Explorer

Open tasks

1. SINE’s critical response to the ledger architecture candidate

2. Ingest: ICC Carbon Accounting FAQ

3. Missing source: the Panel’s Mission, Opportunity, and Principles

4. Undocumented: Jonathan Heiss’s role inside CCTI

5. Unrecorded: the outcome of GIZ Tender 10036847

6. Un-ingested source: Open Problems in Cooperative AI (Dafoe et al., 2020)

7. Unfiled source: FNG-Marktbericht 2026

8. Unanswerable from sources: CCTI Milestone 1, due 30.09.2026

9. Dossier-only findings: five papers whose analysis never reached a wiki page

11. Eight un-ingested sources, filed 22 September – 29 October

Update ⟨2026-11-06, PACT Tech Specs v2.2 ingested⟩ — nine to eight

12. Unanswerable from sources: does the “Internet of Emissions Data” converge, and why is there no cryptography in it?

13. The Hitachi engagement — from outside the wiki to its largest cluster

14. How concentrated is the NatCat model layer, actually?

15. ✅ Closed: the AIST research report defining CVP

16. Un-ingested: the remaining 160 pages of the Hitachi Sustainability Report 2026

17. ✅ Mostly closed: the H-AIST “data model standards for information on goods”

18. Unaddressed by anything SINE builds: arbitrary CE segmentation

19. Three communities state the confidentiality requirement and none considers cryptography — is this a demand problem?

Update ⟨2026-10-27, OECD ingest⟩ — the counterexample exists, and it splits the question

Update ⟨2026-10-29, PACT Network Vision Paper ingest⟩ — a fourth instance, and it is ours

Update ⟨2026-11-01, Pathfinder Framework v2 ingest⟩ — fifth instance, and the sequencing reading gets direct evidence

Update ⟨2026-11-06, Tech Specs v2.2 ingest⟩ — the verdict the PACT strand was waiting for: (b), and it is written down

20. Undisclosed: what moved between Connective Industries and DSS in the FY2025 segment restatement?

21. Three entity pages the Röchling cluster links to do not exist

Closed

✅ Ingest: Verifiable Carbon Accounting in Supply Chains (Heiss et al., 2023)

✅ Ingest: Emission Impossible (Man & Kleppmann, 2026)

Graph View

Backlinks

SINE Strategy Wiki

Explorer

Open tasks

1. SINE’s critical response to the ledger architecture candidate

2. Ingest: ICC Carbon Accounting FAQ

3. Missing source: the Panel’s Mission, Opportunity, and Principles

4. Undocumented: Jonathan Heiss’s role inside CCTI

5. Unrecorded: the outcome of GIZ Tender 10036847

6. Un-ingested source: Open Problems in Cooperative AI (Dafoe et al., 2020)

7. Unfiled source: FNG-Marktbericht 2026

8. Unanswerable from sources: CCTI Milestone 1, due 30.09.2026

9. Dossier-only findings: five papers whose analysis never reached a wiki page

10. Unverified: is confidentiality a constraint on the corporate side of nature-related reporting?

11. Eight un-ingested sources, filed 22 September – 29 October

Update ⟨2026-11-06, PACT Tech Specs v2.2 ingested⟩ — nine to eight

12. Unanswerable from sources: does the “Internet of Emissions Data” converge, and why is there no cryptography in it?

13. The Hitachi engagement — from outside the wiki to its largest cluster

14. How concentrated is the NatCat model layer, actually?

15. ✅ Closed: the AIST research report defining CVP

16. Un-ingested: the remaining 160 pages of the Hitachi Sustainability Report 2026

17. ✅ Mostly closed: the H-AIST “data model standards for information on goods”

18. Unaddressed by anything SINE builds: arbitrary CE segmentation

19. Three communities state the confidentiality requirement and none considers cryptography — is this a demand problem?

Update ⟨2026-10-27, OECD ingest⟩ — the counterexample exists, and it splits the question

Update ⟨2026-10-29, PACT Network Vision Paper ingest⟩ — a fourth instance, and it is ours

Update ⟨2026-11-01, Pathfinder Framework v2 ingest⟩ — fifth instance, and the sequencing reading gets direct evidence

Update ⟨2026-11-06, Tech Specs v2.2 ingest⟩ — the verdict the PACT strand was waiting for: (b), and it is written down

20. Undisclosed: what moved between Connective Industries and DSS in the FY2025 segment restatement?

21. Three entity pages the Röchling cluster links to do not exist

Closed

✅ Ingest: Verifiable Carbon Accounting in Supply Chains (Heiss et al., 2023)

✅ Ingest: Emission Impossible (Man & Kleppmann, 2026)

Graph View

Backlinks