diff --git a/wai/extensions/energy-binding.md b/wai/extensions/energy-binding.md
index 37e04960f..980b6bc67 100644
--- a/wai/extensions/energy-binding.md
+++ b/wai/extensions/energy-binding.md
@@ -165,3 +165,86 @@ as though it were the second.
 The gap between them is the whole of *who says so*, and it is orthogonal to
 everything §3 makes checkable: a perfectly reproducible reconstruction signed by
 nobody in particular is still a claim from nobody in particular.
+
+## 7. The operating point, and why a joule figure alone is not enough
+
+### 7.1 Degradation-blindness
+
+A receipt that records the joules a decode spent, and nothing about how much work
+it was asked to do, is **degradation-blind**. A sink can always spend fewer joules
+by decoding worse, and a figure that cannot distinguish *efficient* from
+*degraded* rewards the wrong behaviour precisely where the number is meant to
+carry weight.
+
+This is not hypothetical. ISO/IEC 23001-11 carries decoding-operation-reduction
+metadata whose purpose is to make a decoder do less; the sender requests a
+reduction, and the receipt as specified today records only what was spent.
+`energy-measurement.md` §5's recomputable-work-unit rule blocks the substitution
+at the byte-exact tier, but not at `entropy-consistency`, and not for the
+conventional codecs WAI already carries.
+
+The rules below make the operating point part of the claim, so the joule figure
+is scored against something rather than merely reported.
+
+### 7.2 Request, commitment, delivery
+
+Where a sender requests an operating point and a receiver acts on it, the receipt
+**MUST** seal all three of:
+
+| field | meaning |
+|---|---|
+| `op_requested` | the operating point the sender asked for |
+| `op_committed` | the operating point the receiver said it would use |
+| `op_delivered` | the operating point actually used |
+
+An operating point is a class-scoped descriptor — frame rate, spatial resolution,
+a complexity target — and this extension does not define its vocabulary. What it
+fixes is that the three are **distinct fields**, because the interesting cases are
+exactly the ones where they differ.
+
+- A receipt **MUST NOT** carry `op_delivered` alone. A delivered figure with
+  nothing to score it against is the degradation-blind case §7.1 describes.
+- `op_committed` **MUST** be recorded as what the receiver stated, even where it
+  differs from the request. A commitment that silently becomes the request is not
+  a commitment.
+- Where `op_delivered` differs from `op_committed`, the receipt **MUST** record
+  both and **MUST NOT** claim the commitment was met.
+- A sink that honoured an operation-reduction request **MUST NOT** claim
+  `decode-equivalence` for the result — see [determinism-tiers](determinism-tiers.md)
+  §2, *What a tier covers*.
+
+This converts a recorded number into a number measured against a promise. Neither
+the prescriptive standards nor the measurement standards provide that pair: one
+says what should be spent, the other what was, and nobody scores the second
+against the first.
+
+### 7.3 The residual
+
+When a declared complexity or operating-point descriptor and a measured energy
+binding both cover the same reconstruction, the receipt **MUST** carry the
+**residual** — the signed difference between the energy the descriptor implies
+and the energy measured.
+
+- The residual **MUST** be computed over the same work unit as the measurement
+  (`energy-measurement.md` §5), or it compares two different things and means
+  nothing.
+- A residual **MUST NOT** be reported without the acquisition class of the
+  measured term. A residual against an `Estimator` figure is a difference between
+  two predictions.
+- An implementation **MUST NOT** suppress a residual because it is large. The
+  large ones are the informative ones; suppression converts a falsifiable claim
+  into an unfalsifiable one.
+
+The residual is what makes the predictive half checkable. A complexity descriptor
+is a prediction about energy, and until something records what actually happened
+against it, the prediction is never wrong. This closes that loop in the artifact
+rather than in a report.
+
+### 7.4 Companion capability
+
+Green-metadata semantics are registered the way
+[`wai.meta.hdr10plus`](../research/media-codec-registry.md) and `wai.meta.dovi`
+are: the capability names the descriptor class — complexity metrics, quality
+recovery, display adaptation — and the sink supplies the decoder. **No carriage
+is adopted**: ISOBMFF and DASH carriage of green metadata is somebody else's
+layer, and WAI naming a descriptor does not make WAI responsible for moving it.
diff --git a/wai/extensions/energy-measurement.md b/wai/extensions/energy-measurement.md
index e5205aa30..dbf7a14f3 100644
--- a/wai/extensions/energy-measurement.md
+++ b/wai/extensions/energy-measurement.md
@@ -59,6 +59,29 @@ documenting them, and returns *no rate at all* — never `0` — when unmetered,
 because a zero reads as "this work was free", which is a stronger and false
 claim than "nobody measured".
 
+### 2.1 Relationship to network-layer energy identities
+
+The three classes above are WAI's own vocabulary, and they are coarser than the
+graded `data-source-accuracy` identity hierarchy an adopted IETF GREEN
+working-group draft defines for device and sub-component energy. That hierarchy
+is the network layer's answer to the same question this section asks: *how was
+this number obtained?*
+
+- An implementation that also reports under a network-layer energy model
+  **SHOULD** derive its acquisition class from that model's identity rather than
+  assigning one independently, and **MUST** state which identity it derived from.
+  Two vocabularies for one property, assigned separately, will disagree.
+- A derivation **MUST NOT** improve the class. Where a network-layer identity
+  maps ambiguously, the **weaker** WAI class applies.
+- An implementation **MUST** declare the tolerance its acquisition class implies.
+  A class without a tolerance is a label; the point of grading provenance is to
+  say how much the figure can be leaned on, and that requires a number.
+
+WAI does not adopt the network-layer model, and this section does not restate it.
+The scopes differ — that model is device- and sub-component-scoped, WAI's figures
+are per-object — and conflating them would breach §4's attribution rules. What is
+required is that the two do not contradict each other about the same measurement.
+
 ## 3. The reference protocol: bracketed marginal measurement
 
 On-die energy counters report the draw of a whole package or SoC, not of one