research: MPEG-AI Part 6 requirement mapping — the one square with a deadline #88

Merged

dcharlot merged 1 commit from wai/mpeg-ai-part6-mapping into main 2026-09-10 12:23:38 -04:00

Conversation 0 Commits 1 Files changed 1 +95

dcharlot commented 2026-09-07 05:58:48 -04:00

Owner

Copy link

A preparation document, not a submission and not a normative extension.

The work item

ISO/IEC 23888-6 — Artificial intelligence for multimedia — Part 6: Media authenticity and provenance indication, carried as an ISO PWI. CfP approved by WG 2 at MPEG 155.

milestone	when
CfP responses → MPEG 157 (Brisbane)	13 January 2027
CD / CDAM	MPEG 158
DIS / DAM	MPEG 159
FDIS / FDAM	early 2028

Scope: system-level media authentication across the entire lifecycle — authoring, creation, production, editing, storage, delivery, playback. Stage is exploration/requirements: no working draft, no bitstream, no format, no capability string to register. A contribution accepted in January has roughly a year of drafting influence before the text sets.

Why WAI's existing provenance ingest is not coverage

WAI's provenance work is authoring-side manifest provenance — who made an asset and how, bound by hash. This work item is a delivery-and-playback authenticity specification. Treating the former as coverage would be a category error: an authoring manifest says what happened before distribution; this is about what can be asserted and checked during it.

What WAI has that the requirements space does not

Two positions absent from every provenance standard in the survey, both sitting inside a lifecycle-scoped authenticity spec:

• Per-object measured energy with a declared acquisition class. Provenance standards record what was done and by whom. None records what it cost, as measured, with the provenance of the measurement stated.
• Determinism tiers separating byte-exact reconstruction from approximate re-rendering. A hard hash over rendered output is only meaningful when the reconstruction is pinned.

Both map to the delivery and playback stages an authoring manifest never reaches.

The asymmetry that makes silence expensive

If this lands as the systems-layer provenance format, WAI is either a profile of it or an alternative to it — and which one is decided by whether the alignment work happened, not by whether a contribution was submitted. Alignment is cheap and reversible. Being an alternative to a ratified systems-layer standard is neither.

§6 states plainly what this does not claim: no contribution will be made, no membership exists, the requirements are not final, and WAI's mechanisms are not adopted by or endorsed by that work item. Submitting requires SC 29 national-body membership — an organisational decision with a lead time against a fixed date.

Ingest queue item 13 (#80 §6.5).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

A **preparation document, not a submission** and not a normative extension. ## The work item **ISO/IEC 23888-6** — *Artificial intelligence for multimedia — Part 6: Media authenticity and provenance indication*, carried as an ISO **PWI**. CfP approved by **WG 2** at MPEG 155. | milestone | when | |---|---| | CfP responses → MPEG 157 (Brisbane) | **13 January 2027** | | CD / CDAM | MPEG 158 | | DIS / DAM | MPEG 159 | | FDIS / FDAM | early 2028 | Scope: system-level media authentication across the **entire lifecycle** — authoring, creation, production, editing, storage, delivery, playback. Stage is exploration/requirements: **no working draft, no bitstream, no format, no capability string to register.** A contribution accepted in January has roughly a year of drafting influence before the text sets. ## Why WAI's existing provenance ingest is not coverage WAI's provenance work is **authoring-side manifest provenance** — who made an asset and how, bound by hash. This work item is a **delivery-and-playback** authenticity specification. Treating the former as coverage would be a category error: an authoring manifest says what happened *before* distribution; this is about what can be asserted and checked *during* it. ## What WAI has that the requirements space does not Two positions absent from every provenance standard in the survey, both sitting inside a lifecycle-scoped authenticity spec: - **Per-object measured energy with a declared acquisition class.** Provenance standards record *what was done and by whom*. None records *what it cost, as measured, with the provenance of the measurement stated*. - **Determinism tiers** separating byte-exact reconstruction from approximate re-rendering. A hard hash over rendered output is only meaningful when the reconstruction is pinned. Both map to the delivery and playback stages an authoring manifest never reaches. ## The asymmetry that makes silence expensive If this lands as **the** systems-layer provenance format, WAI is either a profile of it or an alternative to it — and **which one is decided by whether the alignment work happened, not by whether a contribution was submitted.** Alignment is cheap and reversible. Being an alternative to a ratified systems-layer standard is neither. §6 states plainly what this does **not** claim: no contribution will be made, no membership exists, the requirements are not final, and WAI's mechanisms are not adopted by or endorsed by that work item. Submitting requires SC 29 national-body membership — an organisational decision with a lead time against a fixed date. Ingest queue item 13 (#80 §6.5). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

dcharlot added 1 commit 2026-09-07 05:58:48 -04:00

research: MPEG-AI Part 6 requirement mapping — the one square with a deadline ... 0a18e7141d

ISO/IEC 23888-6 (Media authenticity and provenance indication) is scoped to
system-level media authentication across the entire lifecycle — authoring,
creation, production, editing, storage, delivery, playback — on MPEG Systems
technologies. CfP approved by WG 2 at MPEG 155; responses due as input
contributions to MPEG 157 (Brisbane) on 13 January 2027, then CD at 158, DIS at
159, FDIS early 2028. A contribution accepted in January has about a year of
drafting influence before the text sets.

WHY THIS IS NOT ALREADY COVERED. WAI's provenance ingest is authoring-side
manifest provenance — who made an asset and how, bound by hash. That is a
different layer from a delivery-and-playback authenticity specification. Treating
the existing ingest as coverage would be a category error: an authoring manifest
says what happened BEFORE distribution; this work item is about what can be
asserted and checked DURING it.

WHAT WAI HAS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS SPACE DOES NOT. Two positions absent from
every provenance standard in the survey, both sitting inside a lifecycle-scoped
authenticity spec: per-object MEASURED energy with a declared acquisition class
(provenance standards record what was done and by whom; none records what it
cost, as measured, with the provenance of the measurement stated), and
determinism tiers separating byte-exact reconstruction from approximate
re-rendering (a hard hash over rendered output is only meaningful when the
reconstruction is pinned). Both map to the delivery and playback stages an
authoring manifest never reaches.

THE ASYMMETRY. The downside of silence is not neutral. If this lands as THE
systems-layer provenance format, WAI is either a profile of it or an alternative
to it — and which one is decided by whether alignment work happened, not by
whether a contribution was submitted. Alignment is cheap and reversible; being an
alternative to a ratified systems-layer standard is neither.

Deliberately a research document rather than an extension. There is no bitstream,
no format and no capability string to register — the correct near-term action is
requirement-mapping plus a membership path, and §6 states plainly that this
claims no contribution, no membership, and no endorsement. Submitting requires SC
29 national-body membership, which is an organisational decision with a lead time
against a fixed date.

Ingest queue item 13 (#80 §6.5).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>

dcharlot force-pushed wai/mpeg-ai-part6-mapping from 0a18e7141d to 96ca1d0a56 2026-09-10 10:25:52 -04:00 Compare

dcharlot merged commit 618d2276ef into main 2026-09-10 12:23:38 -04:00

dcharlot referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-09-10 12:23:39 -04:00

Merge pull request 'research: MPEG-AI Part 6 requirement mapping — the one square with a deadline' (#88) from wai/mpeg-ai-part6-mapping into main

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

Labels

Clear labels

No items

No labels

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference

Transaction-Science/open-standards!88

No description provided.