open-standards/wai/research/2030-transport-landscape.md

2030 Media Transport, Encoding, Production and Delivery — landscape and ingest posture

Provenance note. This is a landscape survey, not a normative extension. It was produced by a global sweep across standards bodies (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 WG 2/3/4/5, ITU-T SG21/JVET, IETF AVTCORE / MOQ / SCITT / COSE / GREEN, AMWA, C2PA, Fórum SBTVD/ABNT, Komdigi, WorldDAB), including non-English primary sources, then passed through two adversarial verification lenses: a reality lens (does the designation exist, at the stage and with the content claimed, from the body claimed) and a bearing lens (does it give WAI something to register, to bind, or to specify against — and is it already covered in the tree under another name).

Seventy-one candidates reached verification. Nineteen survived both lenses and are recorded here. Fifty-two were refuted and are deliberately absent — see What did not survive below for the failure modes, so they are not re-litigated.

Confidence limits. Stages move; several items below are drafts or committee documents that can change or die. Where a fact could not be independently confirmed it is marked ⚠ unverified inline and must be checked against the issuing body's catalogue before any of this text is quoted outward.

Verification pass, September 2026. Seven flagged designations were checked against primary catalogues after drafting. Five resolved as stated (ISO/IEC 23001-19 and its MPEG 153 milestone; ISO/IEC 23888-6 and the 13 January 2027 CfP deadline; ITU-T H.274 V4 and the DSC triplet; ISO/IEC 23888-4 at CD; the 23888 series structure). One was corrected — there is no confirmable MPEG-AI Part 7; the conformance/reference-software companion has no visible number. One was narrowed — H.274's in-bitstream signatures survive remux but not transcode, since they are computed over NAL units. Two flags remain open by design and are listed in §9.5. Everything not marked ⚠ has been seen in a primary or issuing-body source. Two paywalled national standards (ABNT NBR 25608:2025, ARIB STD-B60) were read only through their public companions; clause-level claims about them are flagged. Nothing here is a conformance statement about WAI, and nothing here has been implemented.

Posture throughout: ingest, do not compete. Where a body has already specified something, WAI names it, registers a capability string for it, or profiles it — and does not restate it. Where WAI's own text has a hole, the hole is stated plainly.

Later revision: ISO/IEC 23001-11. This survey read 23001-11's decoding-operation reduction as a hint on which a decoder decodes worse. That reading is superseded wherever it appears: §1.2 (degradation under a power-saving hint), §2 (a hint that degrades decode), §3.2 Instance two, §5.3(d) and (e) (an operation reduction the sender requested, as a departure from byte-exact reconstruction), §8 row 1 and §9 item 2. In the 4th-edition CD text (WG 3 N1864), a decoding operation reduction request goes from the receiving device to the remote encoder, which sends a less complex bitstream. Where that text allows "larger energy savings, but at the expense of some QoE degradation", the loss comes from what is sent (a payload altered before it is sent, or a lower-quality representation chosen) or from processing of the decoded pictures, not from a decoder decoding its payload worse. Its energy quantities are expected or potential savings, not energy that was spent. determinism-tiers.md §2 sorts that text's metadata sets by what they change and states the rules over them; the passages above are left as first written. The 2015 edition was not read, so §1.2's "since 2015" is unchecked.

---

1. What 2030 looks like — the thesis the evidence supports

Five movements, each with more than one independent instance.

1.1 The wire carries a process, and this is now ordinary. WAI's founding bet — that a sink can be sent instructions and reconstruct the media itself — has been standardised, ratified, and shipped by other bodies at three different layers. Above the codec: ISO/IEC 23001-16:2021 defines a track that carries a derivation graph the receiver evaluates. Inside the codec: ITU-T H.274's neural-network post-filter SEI carries a filter — by URI or as an in-band network payload — and, in the 01/2026 edition, an in-band prompt and seed fed into that network's input tensor. Beside the pixels: MPEG-AI Part 2 codes video and descriptors jointly, and Part 4 codes no pixels at all, shipping an intermediate feature tensor from the middle of a network. Instruction-carriage is specified at each of those layers. What WAI specifies is the contract over the instruction.

1.2 "Correct" is forking into several incompatible contracts. Byte comparability is becoming one fidelity target among four. Task accuracy is the target in MPEG-AI Parts 2 and 4. Statistical indistinguishability with respect to a downstream model's own variance is a target a vendor has already put in market. Deliberate degradation under a power-saving hint is a target ISO/IEC 23001-11 has carried since 2015. Each is a fidelity claim no hash can express, and each arrives at a sink through the same pipe as a byte-exact one.

1.3 Energy is becoming a two-party protocol, not a measurement. The field's existing energy work is predictive and prescriptive: encoder-side complexity metrics that tell a decoder what to spend (ISO/IEC 23001-11), a receiver request and an encoder commitment (draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata), and a device-scoped power/energy data model with a graded accuracy taxonomy (draft-ietf-green-power-and-energy-yang). None of it carries a measured per-object figure bound to a reproducible output under a signature. That is precisely WAI's lane — and it is now flanked on both sides, which changes the work from invention to reconciliation.

1.4 Provenance is moving below the container and after distribution. ITU-T H.274 (01/2026) signs the coded video inside the elementary stream, where the signature survives a remux. C2PA's soft-binding path recovers a manifest from the samples after the metadata has been stripped, via a registry of registered algorithms and a resolution endpoint. IETF SCITT registers a signed statement in a third-party append-only log so a receipt is checkable by someone who was never on the delivery path. A hard, container-scoped, publisher-signed binding — WAI's — is one binding class among several, and the others exist because normal distribution destroys the first.

1.5 The receipt is generalising into an envelope with typed classes. A national broadcast standard now defines a privacy receipt riding beside the service signalling (ABNT NBR 25608:2025 §8.8). COSE defines a transparency receipt as a registered structure (RFC 9942). WAI defines a delivery-plus-energy receipt. Three bodies, three receipt classes, one shape. The design consequence is that a receipt should be an envelope with a typed class and parent linkage, not one hard-coded field set.

The one-sentence consequence. WAI's remaining defensible ground is not that the wire carries instructions, and not that a receipt exists — both are now common property. It is the conjunction: a pinned reconstruction with a declared determinism tier, a measured energy figure with a declared acquisition class, and a signature binding the two to the same reproducible output. Every item below is judged by whether it strengthens, weakens, or contradicts that conjunction.

---

2. Bets this evidence VALIDATES

Transport-agnosticism was the right refusal. ISO/IEC 23001-19 carries green metadata in ISOBMFF and delivers it over MPEG-DASH — and the reason draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata exists at all is that Part 19 does not cover RTP. The same semantics needed two carriage specifications from two bodies and will need more. A standard that defined its own carriage would have had to write the third. WAI rides one and registers the semantics; that scales, and the evidence for it is a carriage fragmentation now visible in a single semantic family.

Registration is not a bundled decoder — and other bodies now run registries the same way. The C2PA soft-binding algorithm list is a public, schema-validated, machine-readable registry of reverse-DNS algorithm identifiers carrying media types and optional resolution endpoints, with no decoder attached. AMWA's Capabilities Parameter Register is a public register of named parameters against which constraint sets are expressed, rather than a bespoke schema per vendor. Both are the pattern WAI's §5 registry already uses. This is corroboration, and it is also an ingest surface: both registries are things WAI can point at rather than re-author.

Measured, provenance-classed, per-object energy is genuinely unoccupied — and the field around it is not empty. This must be stated carefully, because the neighbourhood has incumbents (§5). ISO/IEC 23001-11 has carried in-band energy metadata since 2015. C2PA 2.4 has an c2pa.environmental-sustainability assertion, which WAI's energy-binding extension already companions. IETF GREEN has an adopted WG draft with a finer accuracy taxonomy than WAI's three-class enum. What none of them has is a figure that is (a) measured rather than declared, (b) labelled with how it was acquired, (c) bound to a reproducible output whose hash a third party can recompute, and (d) signed. The conjunction is the position; each element separately is contested.

Determinism tiers are the vocabulary the field is missing. Three separate items in this slice collide with WAI's tier vocabulary from three directions — a post-decode filter that changes output pixels, a power-saving hint that deliberately degrades decode, and a task-accuracy fidelity target that is not byte-comparable at all. A body that had no tier vocabulary would have no way to say what breaks. WAI has one, and its existence is what makes §3.2 and §3.3 statable as bugs rather than as vague unease.

The instruction bet is directionally right. MPEG-AI Part 4 ships a half-finished computation. H.274 V4 ships a prompt inside a video elementary stream. ISO/IEC 23001-16 ships an operation graph. Three bodies independently concluded the wire should carry something other than samples.

---

3. Bets this evidence CHALLENGES

This section is the point of the document. Each entry names the WAI text that is wrong, thin, or silent.

3.1 "The wire carries instructions" is not novel, and the claim must be narrowed

ISO/IEC 23001-16:2021 — Derived Visual Tracks in the ISO Base Media File Format (MPEG-B Part 16; ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, maintained by WG 3; 1st edition, published 2021-11-19; stage: Published, no amendment, no 2nd edition — further visual derivations remained Technologies-under-Consideration through MPEG 147, July 2024).

A derived visual track (dtrk sample entry) carries derived samples, each an ordered list of derivation operations over an ordered list of inputs — input tracks, track groups, file-level image items, or the output of a preceding operation, so operations chain and an input may itself be a derived track. The first edition's normative base set is ten operations, each identified by a 32-bit four-character code: Identity, sRGB Fill, Dissolve, Crop, Rotation, Mirror, Scaling, ROI selection, Grid composition, Overlay composition.

What this refutes: any WAI claim that carrying a process rather than a processed result is new. It was ratified in 2021, inside the container the whole industry already ships.

What it does not refute: the compression bet. A derived visual track still carries its input tracks' samples in the same file — it avoids re-encoding a derived rendition; it does not replace pixels with instructions the way a sealed op log does.

The honest form of the claim, for use everywhere in the tree: a track that carries a process the receiver evaluates is not novel — MPEG-B Part 16 ratified it in 2021. The parts of Part 16 read here (clauses 1–4, 5.1 and 5.2, and the table of contents) state neither a byte-exact determinism contract per operation nor a signed receipt binding the executed graph to measured joules; clause 5.3, clauses 6 and 7, clause 8, which defines each operation, and Annex A were not read. Note that the base set includes operations that compute new sample values (Dissolve, Scaling), so the tier work is real, not decorative.

Correction. An earlier revision of this section said those operations carry "no bit-exactness requirement". That was not verified. Only the published sample of the standard was read (clauses 1–4, 5.1 and 5.2, and the table of contents; the sample ends at 5.2), and those parts say nothing about bit-exactness either way. Clause 5.3, clauses 6 and 7, clause 8, which defines each operation, and Annex A were not read, so whether they fix the operations' arithmetic — and so whether Part 16 leaves byte-exactness unspecified at all — is open. extensions/derived-tracks.md does not rely on either answer for its three universal conditions, which every tier needs and the executing sink checks. It does rely on the operations' titles, not on clause 8, for the geometric conditions it lists per operation and for which operations read a visual input, and reading clause 8 may show one of those lists to be incomplete.

Caveat for any outward copy: ISOBMFF is universally shipped, but derived visual tracks have negligible deployed player support. The collision is conceptual/standards-level, not installed-base.

Scope note: WAI currently declares presentation and compositing sink-supplied (render is out of scope in linear-film and interactive-worlds; the float rasterizer is presentation for splats). Ingesting the derivation operation set means tiering and receipting the contract — not adopting compositing as WAI's job.

3.2 determinism-tiers.md has a live conformance hole, twice over

This is the highest-value finding in the document, and it is a defect in WAI's own text that exists whether or not anything external is ingested.

Later revision. This section quotes determinism-tiers.md §3 as it stood when the survey was written. §3 and SPEC §7 have since been revised: replicate promises decode-equivalence, and entropy-consistency does not back it.

Instance one — post-decode neural filters. ITU-T H.274's nnpfc / nnpfa SEI messages activate a neural post-filter after a conformant decode, changing output pixels. determinism-tiers.md §3 says a capability's registration states its tier, and that a replicate envelope must pin a prior meeting at least entropy-consistency — but it says nothing about processing activated after the decode. Consequently a capability over any payload that permits VSEI messages cannot honestly claim decode-equivalence, and an envelope with intent = replicate over such a payload is unsound. The fix: state that the tier is a property of decode plus any activated post-loop filter, and that a sink must either refuse or strip the activation, or drop the declared tier.

Instance two — power-saving hints. ISO/IEC 23001-11's decoding-operation reduction metadata asks a decoder to spend fewer joules by decoding worse. An object honouring a power-saving hint cannot simultaneously claim byte-exact reconstruction. The extension must say so. This is the same hole from the other side: a deliberate departure from the pinned reconstruction, with no tier consequence written down.

Later revision. Instance two misdescribes ISO/IEC 23001-11. In its 4th-edition CD text (WG 3 N1864), a decoding operation reduction request goes to the remote encoder, which sends a less complex bitstream; the request does not ask the decoder to decode worse. Of the metadata sets that text's Introduction names, those that change the decoded medium are attenuation-map post-processing, display adaptation and cross-segment decoding. determinism-tiers.md §2 now describes each mechanism and states its rules over them.

Both instances share a root cause: the tiers are defined over the decode, as if the decode were the whole pipeline between bytes and output. It is not.

3.3 Byte-comparability is not the only fidelity contract, and WAI cannot state the others

Three independent arrivals.

MPEG-AI Part 2 — Video coding for machines (VCM). ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 4; stage: DIS, promoted at MPEG 153 (online, 19–23 January 2026), FDIS planned late 2026. Bitstream syntax, semantics and decoding that reconstruct video and descriptors extracted from that video, jointly optimised for bitrate and for machine-task performance after decoding. Companions: ISO/IEC TR 23888-3, "Optimization of encoders and receiving systems for machine analysis of coded video content" — a Technical Report (informative guidance covering both encoder and receiving system; CDTR stage, no recent activity), and a conformance-and-reference-software project that is registered but early-stage, with no published text and no released suite.

Verification (Sept 2026). The ISO/IEC 23888 series resolves as: Part 1 TR 23888-1:2026 (AI for multimedia vision, published); Part 2 Video coding for machines — DIS, enquiry phase; Part 3 Optimization of encoders and receiving systems for machine analysis of coded video content — CDTR; Part 4 Feature coding for machines — CD; Part 5 AI-based point cloud coding; Part 6 Media authenticity and provenance indication (PWI, §6.5). Part 3 is therefore confirmed as the encoder/receiving-system companion. Part 7 is not confirmed — no conformance-and-reference-software part appears in the catalogue listing, so the number should not be cited; refer to it as an unnumbered registered project until an identifier is seen. This does not change the argument, which rests on Part 2's fidelity contract, not on its companions.

MPEG-AI Part 4 — Feature coding for machines (FCM). ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 4; stage: Edition 1 under development ("ongoing"), with common test and training conditions reissued every meeting from MPEG 144 (January 2024) through MPEG 155 (August 2026) and no published CD/DIS/FDIS milestone on mpeg.org — so any date is an estimate, not a schedule.

Verification (Sept 2026). The number 23888-4 is confirmed against the ISO catalogue — ISO/IEC CD 23888-4, Artificial intelligence for multimedia — Part 4: Feature coding for machines — and the catalogue puts it at CD, which is one milestone further than mpeg.org's silence implied. It codes intermediate feature tensors taken from inside a machine-vision network: the origin runs the first N layers, ships the tensor, the sink runs the remainder. No pixels are reconstructed at any point.

Vendor-defined "ML-Safe" compression. Origin: [name removed 2026-09-30]; stage: vendor framing, no standards body, no designation (blog post, 29 July 2026, scoped in the source to autonomous-vehicle camera and synthetic footage). Compression is called ML-Safe when the change it induces in a downstream model's behaviour is statistically indistinguishable from the variance that model already tolerates. What is deployed is the underlying content-adaptive rate control; what is proposed is the fidelity framing — the source itself states the industry "lacks a shared framework."

What all three do to WAI. determinism-tiers.md admits only byte-comparable tiers, and ReplicateClass::Behavioral is a disclaimer rather than a criterion. "Task-equivalent but not bit-equal" is unstateable in WAI today. A whole ratified class of media (VCM) will arrive with a conformance notion WAI cannot express, and a third object class (FCM's half-finished computation) with a tier question WAI's vocabulary has never been put to.

Placement matters. Do not add a task-fidelity tier as a third peer bullet inside determinism-tiers.md. The two existing tiers are reproducibility tiers, checkable by the sink from the bytes alone; a task contract is a fidelity tier that is not. Listing them together blurs a distinction that file currently keeps clean. Land it as a sibling extension (task-fidelity.md) referenced from determinism-tiers.md §4's spectrum framing, and model the claim on energy-measurement.md's provenance grading rather than on the equivalence criteria. The claim shape is cheap: ML-Safe with respect to model-hash M, test T, tolerance τ, observed δ — a provenance-graded claim, no new receipt mechanism. WAI's receipt machinery already signs arbitrary claims; the precise gap is that this claim is not sink-checkable from the bytes, which WAI already handles elsewhere by grading provenance.

FCM's second, sharper bite: the split budget. Sink-side joules are not new to WAI — energy-measurement.md already meters decode energy, and every neural capability burns sink joules today. What is new is that FCM makes the origin/sink work partition a negotiated wire parameter through the cut point N. jwp-receipts.md defines joules_micro as one u64 for "producing this object" by one producer, and §4 forbids conflating relay-scoped telemetry with publisher-issued figures. A cut-point-aware receipt needs joules before the cut, joules attributable after it, and a network-identity hash making the halves provably compose — which pulls in Neural Network Coding (§6.4) as a dependency.

3.4 A receipt does not travel with its object, and WAI has one binding class

C2PA Soft Binding Resolution API + the soft-binding algorithm list. C2PA 2.4 Technical Specification (Decoupled profile) defines the web service: /matches/byBinding (GET and POST), /matches/byContent, optional /matches/byReference, plus store, fetch and service routes for depositing manifests and bindings and listing supported algorithms. It is backed by a CC-BY-4.0, schema-validated public JSON registry maintained by the C2PA Technical Working Group, whose entries carry alg, type (watermark|fingerprint), decoded/encoded media types, entryMetadata.dateEntered, and optional softBindingResolutionApis endpoints, with reverse-DNS-style identifiers. Cite the registry by shape, not by entry count — it is actively growing.

The premise, stated precisely. The loose version ("a WAI receipt is silently voided by the first CDN transcode") overstates it. Reconstruct-class objects have no transcode hop by construction, provenance.md's step chain already models a transcode as a lineage step when the transcoder participates, and WAI does not fail silently — it hard-rejects. The defensible claim is narrower and stronger: a WAI receipt is loudly voided by any non-participating re-encode, and there is no recovery path. WAI has exactly one binding class (BLAKE3 over the envelope) and no notion of a receipt repository.

The energy dimension, which is the part a generic provenance discussion misses. A soft-binding-recovered receipt attests the ancestor's measured joules. If the object was transcoded en route, the transcode's energy is unaccounted and the recovered receipt understates delivered energy. Any WAI ingest must state that such a receipt attests the ancestor and not the object in hand, or it breaks the "never probably fine" rule.

Ingest scope. The Decoupled profile is an HTTP service, and WAI defines no transport and no service. The ingestible part is the second binding class plus the algorithm-identifier and resolution-endpoint fields, referenced the way MoQ is referenced — not the service.

3.5 The acquisition-class enum is private, and an adopted WG draft already has a finer one

IETF GREEN WG (Getting Ready for Energy-Efficient Networking, OPS area). Adopted WG drafts as of mid-2026: draft-ietf-green-framework-02, draft-ietf-green-power-and-energy-yang-03 (a YANG data model for instantaneous watts, nameplate power, power factor and cumulative watt-hours, hierarchical to sub-components), draft-ietf-green-terminology-02, draft-ietf-green-use-cases-02. Two individual drafts: draft-madpr-green-provenance-00 (2026-07-05), which augments the YANG module with a COSE signature-verification outcome, signing-key identity and key ownership; and draft-petra-green-api-04 (2026-07-06), a separate path-level Energy Traffic Ratio query API, not an augmentation of the module.

The collision is not contingent on the provenance draft landing. The already-adopted -03 WG draft defines an extensible data-source-accuracy identity hierarchy: accuracy-unknown, accuracy-unavailable, accuracy-like-parent, accuracy-estimated (-static = manufacturer datasheet, -historic = prior measurements, -learned = ML prediction), and accuracy-measured graded Bronze/Silver/Gold/Red/ones at ±30% / ±10% / ±5% / ±2% / exact. That is already a finer-grained superset of WAI's HwShunt/ModelBased/Estimator enum, at WG-adopted stage, today, and it is explicitly designed for extension by other modules.

Two things this does not mean. It does not mean WAI is superseded: GREEN is Energy-Object/device-scoped (the power draw of network elements) while WAI's joules_micro is per-object work energy — complementary, not substitutable. And it does not expose a relay gap: jwp-receipts.md §4.2/§4.3 already disclaim network-element energy, requiring relay telemetry to stay local and never be conflated with publisher receipts, so the path-level API is an informative citation for a relay's own figure, not a hole WAI must close.

The uncomfortable part. GREEN's identities are tolerance bands; WAI's are source-type labels. Deriving WAI's three classes from data-source-accuracy requires WAI to declare measurement tolerances it currently does not have. That is real work, and it is the price of an external calibration referent for energy-measurement.md §4's attribution-quality ratio.

3.6 No transparency log, no key discovery

IETF SCITT / COSE. RFC 9943, "An Architecture for Trustworthy and Transparent Digital Supply Chains" (SCITT = Supply Chain Integrity, Transparency, and Trust) and RFC 9942, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Receipts" (COSE WG; formerly draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs), both Standards Track, published June 2026; RFC 9995, "COSE Hash Envelope" (July 2026; labels 258 payload_hash_alg, 259 payload_preimage_content_type, 260 payload_location). draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-11 (the HTTP registration and resolution API) is approved and in the RFC Editor queue; draft-ietf-scitt-receipts-ccf-profile-04 (a concrete log profile) was in WG Last Call and must not be presented as ratified. RFC 9943's term for the checking party is Relying Party.

What WAI actually lacks. Not verifiability — an Ed25519 signature over a group Merkle root is checkable by anyone holding the publisher key. The three missing properties are non-equivocation / split-view detection, independent timestamping, and detectability of a suppressed receipt.

The gap is interop encoding, not capability. The family already owns both halves: an RFC-6962-style transparency log with consistency proofs exists, and JCR-1 (deterministic CBOR + COSE_Sign1, RFC 9052) is already the canonical receipt envelope across sibling standards. What nothing in the family has is a standardized external encoding an outside auditor's off-the-shelf tooling can verify with no bespoke verifier. The move is therefore: bring WAI's receipts onto JCR-1 like its siblings, then add an RFC 9942 / RFC 9995 emission profile and SCRAPI registration on top.

Do not swap the delivery receipt for SCITT. SCITT registers per-artifact Signed Statements over an HTTP API; WAI emits per-object receipts at media-group cadence. The correct profile registers the group receipt or periodic checkpoints into a Transparency Service, leaving the per-object receipt where it is.

Prerequisite to check before asserting anything: RFC 9995's payload_hash_alg takes a COSE Algorithms registry identifier, and BLAKE3 does not appear to be registered there. "BLAKE3 as the hash-envelope algorithm" is a registration action or a dual-hash carry, not a free choice.

Key discovery is worse than thin — it is absent. ITU-T H.274's digitally signed content SEI locates a public key either by a direct certificate URI or by an ISO/IEC 21617-1 (JPEG Trust) trust-record URI. WAI cites 21617-1 in reconstruction-binding.md §3, but has no key-discovery or trust-anchor mechanism at all — no certificate, x509 or trust-record text anywhere in SPEC.md. Every WAI signature today presumes the verifier already holds the key.

3.7 There is no authority class, and pre-emption is the highest-authority instruction

WAI signs objects (Ed25519, C2PA carriage) but defines no authority class: no statement of which signing keys may assert which kinds of instruction. That is tolerable while every instruction is "reconstruct this media." It stops being tolerable the moment an object can seize the render surface — which is a deployed, regulated instruction class today (§7.1). A standard whose core bet is that the wire carries instructions has to answer who may sign the strongest one.

---

4. Transport — what WAI must bind to

WAI defines no transport by charter, and this survey validates that refusal (§2). "Bind to" below means name field semantics and specify a rule against them — never adopt a carriage specification.

4.1 Relay path as a claim, not a fact

draft-altanai-moq-relay-geocode-02 — "Geographic Location for Media over QUIC Relays" (Altanai Bisht, Cisco Meraki; Tim Evens, Cisco). Stage: individual Internet-Draft, "I-D Exists" — related to the MOQ WG but not adopted by it; v02 published 2026-08-04, expires 2027-02-05.

It proposes five options for conveying relay location and recommends Option 1: per-object path tracing via MOQT extension headers (MoQTransport §10.2.1.2), where each relay MAY append an entry carrying a device identifier and a direction (ingress/egress), letting a client reconstruct the relay path from received objects. Location is WGS84 decimal-degree latitude/longitude with optional altitude, plus optional IATA three-letter codes and country codes. The other four options (PUBLISH/SUBSCRIBE tracks, catalog metadata, metrics attributes, well-known URIs) are out of scope for a WAI binding.

Two limits that change the ingest. First, the draft defines a data model, not a wire format — it explicitly leaves the reserved namespace, extension header type and encoding to a companion specification or a future MoQTransport revision, and appending is MAY, so traces are advisory and may be incomplete. Bind against field semantics, expect the encoding elsewhere. Second, WAI's BLAKE3 content hash covers the WAI1 envelope (magic + manifest + payload) and not the MOQT extension headers this draft appends to. Path-trace entries are therefore unsigned assertions sitting outside everything WAI signs, and a relay can misstate its coordinates at zero cost.

Correct ingest. Bind the path-trace entries into the currently-unspecified jwp-receipts.md §4.3 parallel relay-attestation receipt — signed under a relay-owned key, chained per hop — and mark the geographic claim at an honest tier. The sibling ruling is already on the books in the Sandbox standard: a self-asserted locality is the weakest normative claim in the ladder, an assertion by the party under audit, checked for presence and nothing else. RTT and path consistency can falsify a coordinate; they can never verify one.

Do not take the grid-carbon lookup. It runs against explicit WAI doctrine, not into a gap: energy-binding.md §4 carries a hard MUST NOT on populating a carbon figure from an energy number times a grid-average factor while presenting it as measured, and jwp-receipts.md §7 states that conversion of joules to currency, carbon or grid mix is performed by downstream aggregators and is not normative. A coordinate at most improves the provenance of a downstream aggregator's input; it does not earn a carbon field in a WAI receipt.

Log this as a near-term watch, not a stable surface.

4.2 Bearers with no return path, and predicates evaluated at the sink

Generalised from the deployed regional early-warning systems in §7.1. Three transport-independent seams, none of which requires WAI to define a bearer:

1. A registered predicate capability carried in the object and evaluated by the sink against locally-held state the source never learns, with a predicate-equivalence determinism contract in the shape of state-feeds.md §3. The specifiable property is determinism and auditability, not enforcement — every sink receives the bytes and can lie about its own state. The real privacy claim is only that the source learns nothing, which is genuinely the dual of source-side session-class targeting in the OTT manifest work.
2. A priority / pre-emption field plus a sink-held trust anchor naming which signing keys may assert it (§3.7).
3. A detached / store-and-forward receipt profile for unidirectional bearers, reconciled out of band. jwp-receipts.md assumes relay-chain linkage throughout; no receipt can prove rendering over a bearer with no return path, so the deliverable is the honest profile, not a proof.

4.3 Pre-dispatch capability constraints

AMWA NMOS BCP-004-01 (Receiver Capabilities) and BCP-004-02 (Sender Capabilities), both v1.0.0, with the public Capabilities Parameter Register. Machine-readable constraint sets — ORed sets of enum/min/max constraints over named parameters (media type, frame rate, colour sampling, bit depth, codec profile), published in a register rather than a bespoke schema.

Ingest the constraint-set grammar and the register pattern only, adopted as a sink-side precondition on §4 dispatch: the sink advertises cap and the object's declared parameters satisfy the registered constraint set for cap. This needs no transport — it evaluates the target values WAI already carries — and it makes §7.1 rendition selection evaluable instead of deferring to an unexpressed deployer policy. Today WAI's dispatch treats support as binary: a sink either claims a capability or does not, and cannot say "this capability, but only to 4K60, 10-bit, this profile," so partial support — the normal case — fails at decode time rather than at selection time.

Drop the pre-flight negotiation framing (IS-11). WAI deliberately defines no transport, registry or controller for it to attach to, and pre-flight capability-plus-energy-budget binding is already owned by JCP.

Two honest limits. NMOS's registers are ST 2110 / broadcast-essence-shaped and cover only WAI's conventional media capabilities — nothing for the neural, quantum, world or haptic families, whose register entries WAI must author itself. And the grammar is thin, close to a JSON-Schema subset; the value is the ratified precedent and the register discipline, not novel machinery.

4.4 The streaming-format slot, and how CMSF proves it is open

MoQ separates transport (draft-ietf-moq-transport, rev 18, approaching WG Last Call) (2026-09-30: the current revision is draft-ietf-moq-transport-21, published 2026-09-08, a WG Document; the working group's milestone for sending it to the IESG is 2026-12-31) from streaming format (draft-ietf-moq-msf). MOQT moves objects; MSF says what the objects mean — it fragments a bitstream into objects, uses a catalog to declare what a publisher emits, and sets prioritisation.

The catalog's packaging field names the format, and MSF's own text fixes its value set: loc, mediatimeline, eventtimeline, moqlog, moqmetrics, catalog. There is no central streaming-format registry.

CMSF shows the set is not closed in practice. draft-ietf-moq-cmsf is a sibling Internet-Draft that:

• declares packaging value cmaf, stating in §3.5.1 that it "extends the allowed packaging values defined in [MSF]";
• inherits MSF wholesale — "All of the specifications, requirements, and terminology defined in [MSF] apply to implementations of this extension";
• adds two track-level catalog fields (maxGrpSapStartingType, maxObjSapStartingType);
• and registers nothing: "This document has no IANA actions."

A sibling draft, no registry action, no permission sought. That is the cheapest standards path anywhere in this survey, and it is already walked — LOCMAF is a second instance of the same move.

What CMSF did not take is the per-object slot. MSF §12 defines MSF Properties at Track and Object scope, with an IANA MSF Property Type values registry that today holds essentially one entry (MSF_COMPRESSION). CMSF adds track-level fields only and defines no per-object property.

A per-object property carrying a content commitment and a measured-energy figure is the shape jwp-receipts.md already has. This is the one place in this survey where WAI's existing artifact fits an existing extension point without redesign — the receipt is already per-object, and the slot is already per-object and empty.

Two constraints, both per §4.4. First, what would be bound is the field semantics and the rule over them, never MOQT's extension-header byte encoding — that stays MOQT's. Second, MOQT is pre-Last-Call: a binding written now is written against a moving target, so the honest form is a draft that tracks the transport rather than a normative extension that pins it.

Provenance of this subsection: added after the sweep, from direct reads of draft-ietf-moq-msf and draft-ietf-moq-cmsf-00. The automated survey did not surface the streaming-format layer at all — it found MoQ only through the confidentiality binding WAI already has — which is itself worth noting about the method: a sweep keyed to what is new can miss a slot that is old and open.

4.5 What must NOT be bound

Stated explicitly so it is not re-argued: ISOBMFF/DASH carriage of green metadata; the RTCP feedback messages themselves; the C2PA Decoupled HTTP service; DVB-T2 bearer signalling; the MOQT extension-header byte encoding. Each is somebody else's layer, and WAI riding a transport rather than defining one is the property that makes the rest of the ingest cheap.

---

5. Delivery telemetry and energy — a contested field, not an empty one

5.1 The incumbents

Designation	Body	Stage	What it carries
ISO/IEC 23001-11 (MPEG-B Part 11, "Green metadata")	SC 29/WG 3	3rd ed. 2023 in force; AMD 1:2024 (EVC), AMD 2:2025 (new display power reduction metadata); 4th ed. at CD (WG 3 doc N01742)	complexity metrics for decoder DVFS, decoding-operation-reduction metadata, quality metrics parameterising the trade-off, display power-reduction metadata
ISO/IEC 23001-19 ("Carriage of green metadata")	SC 29/WG 3	advanced to publication as an IS at MPEG 153; ISO publication pending as of Sept 2026	storage in ISOBMFF (14496-12), delivery over MPEG-DASH (23009-1) — DASH, not CMAF, and not RTP
draft-ietf-avtcore-rtcp-green-metadata-16	IETF AVTCORE	IESG Evaluation (AD Followup, one open DISCUSS), intended Proposed Standard, normatively aligned to 23001-11:2023	TSRR (PT=PSFB, FMT=12): receiver requests a frame rate and picture width/height in luma samples; TSRN (FMT=13): sender notifies what it will actually use, explicitly permitted to differ
draft-ietf-green-power-and-energy-yang-03	IETF GREEN	adopted WG draft	device/sub-component power and energy, with the graded data-source-accuracy identity hierarchy (§3.5)
c2pa.environmental-sustainability	C2PA	published, 2.4	energy_kwh (per ISO/IEC TR 20226:2025) with optional measurementMethod — already companioned by energy-binding.md

Verification (Sept 2026). The identifier 23001-19 and the MPEG 153 IS milestone are confirmed against MPEG's own 153rd-meeting record: WG 3 advanced Carriage of green metadata to publication as an International Standard, defining storage in ISOBMFF (14496-12) and delivery with MPEG-DASH (23009-1). It exists as a dedicated carriage part precisely because carriage had outgrown the 23001-11 amendment route (cf. 23001-11:2015/Amd 1:2016, Carriage of green metadata in an HEVC SEI message). The ISO catalogue entry was not reachable directly (iso.org returns 403 to automated fetch), so confirm the published number at first outward citation. The 4th edition of 23001-11 remains at WD/CD, not ratified; do not present it alongside the carriage part as though both were in force.

5.2 What is actually unoccupied

Green metadata is predictive and prescriptive — what the decoder should spend. It carries no measured joules, no acquisition provenance, no signature and no per-object binding to a reproducible output. It is therefore not prior art against energy-binding.md, and any text claiming otherwise should be corrected: the relationship is complementary — a prospective steering signal beside a retrospective measured receipt. The same holds for GREEN (device-scoped power draw, not per-object work energy) and for the RTCP pair (a request and a commitment, not a result).

The unoccupied square is the conjunction from §1: measured, acquisition-classed, per-object, bound to a reproducible output, signed.

5.3 Four concrete ingests

(a) A registered companion descriptor for green-metadata semantics. Same pattern as wai.meta.hdr10plus and wai.meta.dovi: name the capability (complexity metrics, quality recovery, display adaptation), the sink supplies the decoder, no carriage adopted.

(b) A request/commit/deliver triple in the receipt. Take from TSRR/TSRN the receipt shape WAI lacks: seal (requested profile, notified profile, delivered profile) alongside the measured joules. That converts a recorded figure into a figure scored against a promise — a commitment/conformance pair neither standard provides. Do not register the RTCP messages; WAI rides MoQ, not RTP.

(c) A residual binding that makes the predictive claim falsifiable. When a declared complexity/operating-point descriptor and a measured energy binding both cover the same reconstruction, the receipt carries the residual. That closes a loop nobody has closed: the prescription becomes checkable against the measurement. It is the efficiency/1 pattern — a per-unit signed figure anchored to a reproducible outcome — applied to decode.

(d) Degradation-blindness is the reason (b) and (c) are not optional. A receipt that records joules spent without recording the operation reduction the sender requested is degradation-blind: a sink can always cut joules by decoding worse. energy-measurement.md §5's recomputable-work-unit rule blocks this at the byte-exact tier, but not at the weaker tier determinism-tiers.md admits (entropy-consistency), and not for the conventional codecs WAI already carries. This applies the joule-ceiling × fidelity-floor pattern already shipped in the Mesh standard to media, which makes it a cheap ingest rather than a research bet.

(e) Derive the acquisition classes from GREEN's identities and declare the tolerances that derivation requires (§3.5). And specify the interaction with determinism-tiers.md, since operation reduction is a deliberate departure from byte-exact reconstruction and must state its tier (§3.2).

---

6. Production chain — the gap WAI has barely addressed

WAI's provenance model is a step chain among participating parties, with the identity fixed as a hash over the complete envelope. The production and distribution world is standardising provenance in three places WAI does not reach: below the container, after the container is destroyed, and in a third-party log.

6.1 Below the container — signatures in the elementary stream

ITU-T H.274 (V4, 01/2026), in force 2026-01-13 | ISO/IEC 23002-7 (VSEI) — digitally signed content SEI messages DSCI / DSCS / DSCV. Issued by ITU-T SG21 / JVET jointly with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 WG 5. DSCI declares the hash method (SHA-1 … SHA-512/256, FIPS 180-4) and locates the public key by certificate URI or by an ISO/IEC 21617-1 (JPEG Trust) trust-record URI; DSCS/DSCV carry the signature and verification scope over picture units, with verification substreams covering non-VCL NAL units under a dsci_sei_signing_flag. Carried into the AVC 12th edition (FDIS at MPEG 154). On the ISO side, pair with 23002-7:2024 (3rd ed.; 4th ed. in preparation) rather than implying a published twin of V4.

Verification (Sept 2026). ITU-T H.274 (V4) (01/2026) is confirmed to exist and to carry the DSC triplet, with DSCV holding the signature plus verification system and substream IDs, DSCS carrying the matching dsci_id, and the design explicitly resisting removal, insertion and shuffling of chunks in the protected stream. A GStreamer implementation exists. Two refinements: the mechanism traces to JVET contribution JVET-AN1019, and independent write-ups still describe DSC as being incorporated into VSEI — so treat V4 as the edition that carries it, not necessarily the edition that invented it. Critically, survivability is remux-scoped, not transcode-scoped: signatures are computed over NAL units, and a transcode rewrites those. That is not a weakness of the comparison — it is the boundary between this finding and §3.4: H.274 covers repackaging, soft binding covers re-encoding, and WAI today has neither.

Why this matters: the standards world is drawing the provenance boundary one layer below WAI, where a signature survives repackaging and is verifiable by a decoder that has never heard of WAI.

Honest scope. WAI registers no VSEI-family codec — H.265 appears in SPEC.md only in the royalty-trap rationale favouring royalty-free codecs — so the ingest is prospective, not a live interop problem. It would require first registering a VSEI-family capability, honestly pool-flagged as WAI already does for IVAS, G-PCC and V-PCC.

Correct ingest: a provenance/determinism extension that verifies DSC SEI at the elementary-stream level and chains the verdict into the WAI receipt as an attested input with a stated precedence rule (not a replacement), plus the key-discovery mechanism WAI lacks entirely, borrowed from DSCI's key-location design.

6.2 Below the container — executable payloads in the elementary stream

Neural-network post-filter SEI (nnpfc / nnpfa), ITU-T H.274 | ISO/IEC 23002-7. Stage: ratified — entered in version 3 (H.274 (09/2023) | ISO/IEC 23002-7:2024), extended in V4 (01/2026). H.265 support is by normative reference and dates to H.265 (07/2024), refined in H.265 (01/2026) — a reference-in, not a native definition.

nnpfc declares a sink-side neural post-filter either by URI or by carrying the network payload in-band as an ISO/IEC 15938-17 (NNC) bitstream, with declared input/output formats and a purpose field — a small fixed enum (resolution and chroma upsampling, frame-rate interpolation, quality enhancement/denoising, colourization), not a capability registry. nnpfa activates it for a picture range. V4 adds nnpfc_inband_prompt_flag / nnpfc_prompt — an in-band text prompt fed into the network's input tensor, e.g. to generate spatial-extrapolation content — and nnpfc_seed. That is a literal in-band generative prompt inside a video elementary stream, and it is the strongest external evidence for §1.1.

Three corrections to the obvious reading. (1) In-band weights are not unbound: WAI's per-object BLAKE3 covers the whole opaque payload, so an NNC blob inside the stream is hash-pinned by construction. The real hole is the URI-referenced form — the payload then carries only a pointer, and the fetched network is code executed at the sink that no WAI hash covers. (2) The sharpest hole is determinism-tier soundness, not signing — see §3.2. (3) The energy angle is the weakest leg: a sink-side meter over the decode already captures post-filter inference joules; what is missing is attribution between decode and filter, a provenance refinement rather than an absence.

Correct ingest: a container policy plus a companion descriptor — wai.meta.nnpf alongside wai.meta.hdr10plus / wai.meta.dovi — that states the tier consequence and requires the URI form to be pinned or refused. Not a mandate to ship a post-filter dispatcher.

6.3 After the container — recovery when the binding is destroyed

Covered in §3.4. The deliverables are a second binding class, an algorithm-identifier field, a resolution-endpoint field, and the ancestor-attestation rule for energy.

6.4 The artifact a Prior names has no normative wire form

MPEG Neural Network Coding — ISO/IEC 15938-17 (MPEG-7 Part 17). Edition 2 published 2024 (neural-network parameters and their incremental updates; note incremental/federated update coding landed in Ed. 2, so it is not new). Stage: Committee Draft of Amendment (CDAM) issued at MPEG 154 (Santa Eulària, 27 April – 1 May 2026); MPEG separately lists an ongoing Edition 3 project with the same tensor-coding objective, into which the work is expected to be integrated — so cite it as "the NNC amendment (CDAM, MPEG 154)", not "Ed. 3". Reference software: specified by a separate part, ISO/IEC 15938-18 (Conformance and reference software for compression of neural networks; 1st ed. 2023, 2nd ed. 2025), which also carries the conformance bitstreams and the decoder and bitstream test procedures. NNCodec ([name removed 2026-09-30]) is a separate open implementation: its README calls it "an efficient implementation of NNC" and states that 2.0-beta is compliant with 15938-17:2024, and its licence file states that no patent rights are granted. Describe NNC as the first international standard on neural network compression, not the only one. (Corrected: an earlier revision of this note called NNCodec the reference implementation.)

NNC is not quantisation-only. The 2022 edition's public sample defines an NNR unit as carrying "compressed or uncompressed" network data. Its table of contents lists decoding methods for payload types NNR_PT_INT, NNR_PT_FLOAT, NNR_PT_RAW_FLOAT and NNR_PT_BLOCK (§7.3.2–7.3.5), and a decoding process for an integer weight tensor (§7.3.6). NNCodec's source (HEAD, read September 2026) reads an NNR_PT_RAW_FLOAT payload as raw 32-bit floats (nnc_core/hls/__init__.py). Its approximator gives int32 tensors a skip method with dq_flag 0, so they are not quantised (nnc_core/approximator/integer.py). Its payload-type enum marks NNR_PT_INT "not yet implemented". So integer and raw-float carriage without quantisation is already in the published text. On that evidence, the amendment's "lossless compression" adds compression for values the published text can already carry exactly, rather than introducing exact carriage. The decoding clauses themselves (§7.3) and the 2024 edition were not read.

The amendment adds: lossless and mixed lossy+lossless compression in one bitstream; source-data-type indication for limited-bit-depth models; finer-grained quantisation configuration; configurable extensions for initialising, ordering and packing data; extension beyond trained parameters to general tensorial data (split-inference feature maps, federated-learning updates, 3D/4D scene parameters including Gaussian splats); and signing and verification of individual coded data units.

Verified (Sept 2026) against a primary source. MPEG's press release for its 154th meeting (mpeg.org, 4 June 2026), in the section headed "MPEG publishes Committee Draft of Amendment of Neural Network Coding (NNC)", states the stage and the features listed above, including: "it adds support for signing and verification of data units, which allows verifying the authenticity of a set of neural network parameters, as well as parts of a neural network or its updates." MPEG's meeting list gives MPEG 154 as Santa Eularia, 2026-04-27 to 2026-05-01. (Corrected: an earlier revision of this note said the signing feature could not be corroborated from public sources. The press release corroborates it.) The amendment's text and its WG document number were not seen. So what a data-unit signature covers, which scheme it uses and how its key is identified are unknown. The base standard is confirmed: ISO/IEC 15938-17 (1st ed. 2022, 2nd ed. 2024), Compression of neural networks for multimedia content description and analysis — DeepCABAC entropy coding, pruning/sparsification/low-rank preprocessing, incremental-update support, with reference software in ISO/IEC 15938-18 and a separate open implementation (NNCodec) [name removed 2026-09-30]. The claim that needs no amendment at all is the carriage one: NNC is a ratified wire format for the artifact a Prior names; for a set of several files, WAI pins its listing (wai.prior.set, SPEC §3.1). The signing feature is a second surface. It concerns how NNC's in-band signatures relate to WAI's digest, which extensions/prior-carriage.md §6 fixes without depending on the amendment's details.

What WAI already has, stated correctly. WAI pins model identity normatively: SPEC §3.1 defines the pin, carried as conditioning.prior in a single-payload manifest and on each rendition of a multi-rendition one, and requires a sink to verify it before decoding and to refuse with a named reason. What WAI does not specify is model carriage: the set a pin names travels outside the envelope, in a form the pin MAY declare.

Three concrete surfaces. (1) Name NNC as the standards-track normative form for the artifact a Prior identifies, so Prior.sha256 covers a portable bitstream rather than an ad-hoc directory. Whether a bitstream reconstructs its network identically at every decoder, and so could carry decode-equivalence rather than only entropy-consistency, is decided by the decoding process (clause 7) and its conformance requirement, not by the amendment. Integer and raw-float payload types already carry values unquantised in the published text. (Corrected: an earlier revision said the amendment's lossless mode would make the bitstream byte-exact. Exact values are already carriable. Byte-exact reconstruction at every decoder is the open question, and clause 7 is where it is settled.) (2) Register a capability for the general-tensor payload: split-inference feature maps and 3D/4D scene tensors are a payload class WAI lacks and which fits the instruction/latent thesis — and it directly abuts the existing wai.splat.int_codec. (3) Reconcile NNC's data-unit signing with WAI's Ed25519/Merkle receipt chain the way reconstruction-binding.md reconciles C2PA, before the two diverge.

6.5 The one square with a deadline

MPEG-AI Part 6 — "Media authenticity and provenance indication." Call for Proposals issued by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 2 (Technical Requirements) on technologies owned by WG 3 (MPEG Systems), at MPEG 155, Geneva, 13–17 July 2026; CfP document w26712, dated 18 July 2026. Responses due 13 January 2027, evaluated at MPEG 157 (January 2027). Scope: system-level media authentication across the entire lifecycle — authoring, creation, production, editing, storage, delivery and playback — built on MPEG Systems technologies. Preceded by five Exploration reports (MPEG 151–155) and a WG 2 requirements document. Stage: exploration/requirements; no working draft exists.

Verification (Sept 2026). The part number is confirmed: ISO/IEC 23888-6, Information technology — Artificial intelligence for multimedia — Part 6: Media authenticity and provenance indication, carried as an ISO PWI (preliminary work item) project record. The CfP was approved by WG 2 at MPEG 155; responses are input contributions to the 157th meeting, Brisbane, due 13 January 2027. The published development plan then targets CD/CDAM at MPEG 158, DIS/DAM at MPEG 159 and FDIS/FDAM in early 2028 — so a contribution accepted in January 2027 has roughly a year of drafting influence before the text sets.

Bearing. Real and uncovered: WAI's existing C2PA / JPEG Trust ingest is authoring-side manifest provenance, a different layer from a systems-layer delivery-and-playback authenticity specification. Two WAI positions absent from every provenance standard in this survey — a per-object measured-energy binding with a declared acquisition class, and explicit determinism tiers separating byte-exact reconstruction from approximate re-rendering — belong exactly there.

Correct near-term action. Requirement-mapping and alignment, plus a membership path. This is a published CfP and requirements package to specify WAI's extensions against — there is no bitstream, no format and no capability string to register — and submitting an input contribution requires SC 29 national-body membership. Do not plan around an assumed proposal submission. The downside of silence is symmetric and worse than the cost of alignment: if this lands as the systems-layer provenance format, WAI becomes an alternative to it rather than a profile of it.

---

7. Regional standards a Western review misses

Both items below are ratified national instruments, both were surfaced only by non-English search, and both contain a mechanism WAI has no vocabulary for.

7.1 Indonesia — sink-evaluated scope predicates and pre-emptive priority objects

Peraturan Menteri Kominfo No. 3 Tahun 2014, "Persyaratan Teknis Sistem Peringatan Dini Bencana Alam pada Alat dan Perangkat Penerima Televisi Siaran Digital Berbasis Standar DVB-T2" — ditetapkan 15 January 2014, diundangkan 21 January 2014. Issuing body: Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika (Kominfo; since October 2024 Kementerian Komunikasi dan Digital, Komdigi). Primary text: jdih.komdigi.go.id/produk_hukum/view/id/193.

Mechanism. Alert objects are injected into the DVB-T2 stream at the multiplexer (agency server → mux → set-top box), fed by the national hazard agencies (BMKG, BNPB, PVMBG, KLHK, BPBD). The viewer enters a postal code at channel scan; the receiver filters incoming alerts against that locally-held code, so only sinks inside the affected area render. Rendering authority is tiered: Waspada (blue) and Siaga (yellow) render as a ~30% overlay for ~30 s over continuing programming; Awas (red) seizes the full screen with audio. Pre-emption is an attribute of the highest priority class, not of every alert.

The pattern is not unique to Indonesia. The same sink-evaluated-predicate shape recurs in ISDB-T EWBS and in WorldDAB's Automatic Safety Alert (ETSI TS 104 090 v1.1.2, September 2024 — location codes plus wake-up and switch). Do not list the Israeli Home Front Command TV alert as an instance: its region code is composited centrally into the broadcast and the receiver performs no filtering.

What WAI has no vocabulary for. (1) A scope predicate evaluated at the sink against state the source never learns — targeting with no upstream identity, no profile and no telemetry, which is the privacy-preserving dual of every addressable-delivery scheme and needs a determinism contract of its own, because a predicate that evaluates differently on two conformant sinks means the same object reached different audiences. (2) A pre-emption instruction class, whose authority question WAI has never asked (§3.7). (3) A bearer with no return path, over which no receipt can prove rendering. The three seams and their honest limits are specified in §4.2.

7.2 Brazil — a lawful-basis declaration and a viewer-decision receipt

ABNT NBR 25608:2025, "TV 3.0 — Codificação de aplicações" (Application Coding), ABNT/CEE-085, published 2025-11-18. §8.8 Privacy Manager: §8.8.2 PRRD (Privacy Record Request Description), §8.8.3 privacy record, §8.8.4 privacy receipt. Companion (explicitly non-normative, stamped "NO NORMATIVE VALUE" on every page, and in English): the Fórum SBTVD TV 3.0 Operational Guidelines — Application Coding, July 2026. ⚠ Clause-level detail below is read through the companion; the normative text is paywalled.

Mechanism. PRRD is an XML fragment carried in Service Layer Signaling (see ABNT NBR 25602), following the ATSC A/331 fragment-based signalling model. Per service it declares one or more piiProcessing elements (one per language) containing purpose elements typed with W3C DPV terms and a purpose@lawfulBasis per purpose, with personal-data categories from W3C PD v2.0. Structured records and receipts follow the ISO/IEC TS 27560:2023 model (a Technical Specification, "Privacy technologies — Consent record information structure"; the standard cites it undated). The PRRD schema is namespaced tag:sbtvd.org.br,2025:XMLSchemas/TV30/AppSignaling/PRRD/1.0/… and versioned per instance by the root PRRD@schemaVersion attribute.

Two precision points that change the reading. Do not call PRRD a consent mechanism: it is deliberately agnostic across lawful bases (dpv:Consent, dpv:LegitimateInterest, dpv:Contract, dpv:LegalObligation, dpv:PublicInterest, dpv:VitalInterest, dpv:OfficialAuthorityOfController), each purpose carries its own basis, and PRRD itself records no viewer choice — it declares the processing context the later record and receipt are expressed against. And do not describe the receipt as cryptographically signed: no signature, hash or integrity mechanism is described in the public text, which weakens but does not eliminate the analogy to WAI's signed delivery receipts.

Bearing. This is a ratified national broadcast standard defining a receipt class WAI does not have — the afferent dual of a delivery receipt, answering what may be done with what the sink observed, on what lawful basis, and here is the record that the viewer decided — expressed as a signalling fragment riding beside the manifest, exactly where WAI's own per-object metadata sits. It is the strongest evidence in this survey for §1.5.

Correct ingest. A typed receipt class in the jwp-receipts.md envelope (which already has kinds and parent linkage), plus a companion-rendition descriptor for the declaration fragment — the slot HDR10+ metadata already uses. A companion's capability is companion-only (SPEC §7.1, rule 1), and a sink applies only one it recognises, so the fragment would need a companion-only capability registered for it; IAMF is standalone media and rides as a rendition. Not a new receipt format.

7.3 Regional items examined and rejected

Two further regionally-originated candidates were verified and did not survive, and are recorded here only so they are not re-opened: a Chinese intelligent-media transport standard (no ingestible surface — WAI's registry is a capability registry with no transport or container class, and an opaque WAI envelope rides such a bearer today with zero adaptation), and a Japanese MMT-over-TLV broadcast standard whose load-bearing clause claim proved to be a committee proposal rather than adopted text. Neither is a finding.

---

8. Ingest queue, ranked

Ranked by decision-forcing-ness ÷ cost, not by importance of the external body. Items 1–2 are internal defects that need no external dependency at all.

#	Ingest	Shape of work	External dependency	Why now
1	Determinism-tier rule for post-decode processing and power-saving hints (§3.2)	normative text in determinism-tiers.md: the tier is a property of decode plus any activated post-loop filter; a sink must refuse/strip or drop the tier; an object honouring an operation-reduction hint MUST NOT claim byte-exact reconstruction	none	a live soundness hole in shipped text; ratified externally on both sides
2	task-fidelity.md as a sibling extension + a consumer-type axis in content-taxonomy.md (§3.3)	tier name + provenance-graded claim shape (model-hash M, test T, tolerance τ, observed δ); referenced from determinism-tiers.md §4; not a third peer tier inside it	none	VCM reaches FDIS; the vendor framing exists and admits no shared framework
3	Green-metadata companion descriptor + request/commit/deliver + residual binding (§5.3)	one registered companion capability; three receipt fields; a residual rule	ISO/IEC 23001-11 semantics (published)	closes degradation-blindness; applies joule-ceiling × fidelity-floor to media
4	Receipt envelope with typed classes — delivery, energy, lawful-basis, log-inclusion (§1.5, §7.2)	generalise jwp-receipts.md kinds; PRRD, SCITT and soft binding all land in this slot	none (shape only)	three bodies converging on the same artifact
5	Second binding class + resolution-endpoint field + ancestor-attestation rule (§3.4)	fields + a MUST stating a recovered receipt attests the ancestor, not the object in hand	C2PA soft-binding algorithm list (published registry)	today a non-participating re-encode leaves no recovery path
6	Key discovery, plus DSC SEI verdict chaining with a precedence rule (§3.6, §6.1)	a trust-anchor mechanism WAI has none of; borrow DSCI's key-location design (certificate URI or ISO/IEC 21617-1 trust record)	ITU-T H.274 V4 (in force)	every WAI signature presumes the verifier already holds the key
7	JCR-1 alignment, then an RFC 9942 / RFC 9995 emission profile + SCRAPI registration (§3.6)	move receipts onto the family's canonical envelope; emit the group receipt or checkpoints; decide BLAKE3 registration vs dual-hash	RFCs published; SCRAPI in RFC Editor queue; CCF profile in Last Call	non-equivocation, timestamping and suppression-detection are missing today
8	Derive acquisition classes from GREEN data-source-accuracy, and declare tolerances (§3.5)	register HwShunt/ModelBased/Estimator as identities derived from the hierarchy; state measurement tolerances	adopted WG draft	the enum is private and coarser than an adopted draft, now
9	NNC as the normative artifact form for a Prior; register the general-tensor payload (§6.4)	reference the bitstream; one new capability; reconcile data-unit signing	CDAM stage — track, do not pin	a pin covers a set of files through its listing; NNC would give its networks a coded form
10	Sink-evaluated predicate capability + authority class + detached receipt profile (§4.2, §7.1)	predicate-equivalence contract; priority field + sink-held trust anchor; store-and-forward receipt profile	deployed regional precedent (no dependency)	pre-emption is the highest-authority instruction and WAI names no signer class
11	NMOS constraint-set grammar over the capability registry (§4.3)	a sink-side precondition on §4 dispatch; author register entries for the non-broadcast families	BCP-004-01/-02 v1.0.0 (ratified)	makes §7.1 rendition selection evaluable rather than policy-deferred
12	Register the Part 16 derivation operations with a per-operation determinism tier (§3.1)	capability strings + tiers; do not adopt compositing	ISO/IEC 23001-16:2021 (published)	prevents restating a 2021 ratification as a WAI invention
13	MPEG-AI Part 6 requirement mapping + SC 29 membership path (§6.5)	map WAI's measured-energy binding and determinism tiers onto the CfP requirements	CfP responses due 13 January 2027	the only square in this survey with a deadline
13b	MoQ streaming-format binding — a sibling I-D declaring packaging: "wai", plus a per-object MSF Property carrying the JWP content commitment and measured joules (§4.4)	one draft; inherit MSF; no IANA action (CMSF precedent)	draft-ietf-moq-msf / -cmsf; MOQT pre-Last-Call, so track rather than pin	the per-object property slot is empty, the receipt is already per-object, and the transport is the one [name removed 2026-09-30]-class delivery is converging on
14	Watch list	relay geocode (unadopted I-D, data model only); FCM cut-point receipt; the VCM conformance suite when it issues; ISO/IEC 23001-11 4th ed. and 23001-19 catalogue confirmation	—	none is a stable surface yet

---

9. What would falsify this

Each of these is an observation that would invalidate a specific conclusion above. They are listed so the document can be checked rather than believed.

1. The energy square turns out to be occupied. If any of ISO/IEC 23001-11's 4th edition, MPEG-AI Part 6's eventual working draft, or a GREEN WG document adds a measured per-object figure with an acquisition class bound to a reproducible output under a signature, then §2's "unoccupied conjunction" is false and the position collapses to a profile of someone else's field. Check at each MPEG meeting and at each GREEN WG revision.

2. The determinism-tier hole is not a hole. If a reading of determinism-tiers.md §3 plus SPEC.md §7 already excludes post-decode processing by construction — for instance because no registered capability's payload can carry VSEI messages — then §3.2's first instance is a documentation clarification rather than a soundness defect. The second instance (power-saving hints) would survive regardless.

3. The carriage-fragmentation argument reverses. If ISO/IEC 23001-19 or a successor grows an RTP binding, or the AVTCORE draft is abandoned, the evidence for §2's transport-agnosticism claim weakens to a single data point. It does not become wrong; it becomes unsupported.

4. Soft binding turns out to be unusable for energy. If the recovered-receipt ancestor rule cannot be stated without either overstating what the receipt covers or making the receipt useless, then item 5 in the queue is not ingestible and WAI should say plainly that it has one binding class and no recovery path, rather than shipping a weak second one.

5. A designation in this document does not exist as described. Five of the original flags were checked in September 2026 and resolved: ISO/IEC 23001-19 and its MPEG 153 IS milestone (confirmed); ISO/IEC 23888-6 and the 13 January 2027 CfP deadline (confirmed, with the full CD→DIS→FDIS ladder to early 2028); ITU-T H.274 V4 (01/2026) carrying the DSC triplet (confirmed, with survivability narrowed to remux, not transcode); ISO/IEC 23888-4 at CD (confirmed); and the 23888 series structure (Part 3 confirmed, Part 7 corrected — no such part appears in the catalogue).

   A sixth was resolved later in September 2026. The NNC signed-data-unit feature (§6.4) is stated in MPEG's own press release for MPEG 154, as part of the Committee Draft of Amendment. Its text was not read, so the feature's details remain unknown.

   One remains open and it is consequential. ABNT NBR 25608's clause-level detail (§7.2) was read only through public companions because the standard is paywalled; buy it before quoting a clause number outward. If it fails catalogue confirmation, that row leaves the queue without disturbing the others.

6. The regional mechanisms are already expressible. If a predicate capability turns out to be a straightforward instance of existing WAI state-feed machinery with no new determinism contract required, item 10 shrinks to a registry entry. The authority-class gap (§3.7) would still stand on its own, because no amount of state machinery says which key may sign a pre-emption.

7. Two adversarial lenses were not enough. Fifty-two of seventy-one candidates were refuted, and the dominant failure modes were already covered under another name, no ingestible surface, and mis-staged or misattributed — a draft presented as ratified, a guideline presented as a normative annex, a proposal presented as adopted text. That distribution is itself a warning: the surviving nineteen were checked against the same failure modes, but the base rate suggests at least one of them is wrong in a way this pass did not catch. Re-verify stage and issuing body before any of this text is quoted outside the tree.