# WIA-IND-030 PHASE 2 — API Interface Specification **Standard:** WIA-IND-030 **Phase:** 2 — API Interface **Version:** 1.0 **Status:** Stable **Source:** synthesized from the original `PHASE-1-DATA-FORMAT.md` (quarter 2 of 4) --- - Data fields (stage-specific) - Blockchain transaction hash (if applicable) ### 7.3 Lifecycle Event Format ```json { "eventId": "EVT-2025-001234", "type": "refurbishment", "timestamp": "2025-06-15T14:30:00Z", "location": { "name": "RefurbTech Center A", "address": "456 Repair Street, Oakland, CA", "coordinates": { "latitude": 37.8044, "longitude": -122.2712 } }, "actor": "RefurbTech Inc.", "description": "Battery replacement and screen repair", "conditionBefore": "fair", "conditionAfter": "like-new", "data": { "partsReplaced": ["battery", "screen"], "cost": 125.00, "currency": "USD", "warrantyExtension": 365 }, "txHash": "0x7f8c..." } ``` ### 7.4 Ownership Tracking Product ownership SHALL be tracked with: - Owner ID and name - Start date - End date (if transferred) - Ownership type (purchase, lease, rental, sharing) - Transfer method - Transfer price (if applicable) ### 7.5 Usage Metrics For products with embedded sensors or connectivity, usage metrics MAY be tracked: - Usage hours - Usage cycles - Distance traveled (vehicles) - Energy consumed - Maintenance events - Performance degradation - Environmental conditions --- ## 8. Circularity Metrics and Assessment ### 8.1 Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) The Material Circularity Indicator measures how restorative material flows are in a product or company. #### 8.1.1 MCI Calculation ``` MCI = (1 - V) × (1 - W/2) Where: V = Virgin material input ratio W = Unrecoverable waste ratio ``` Detailed formula: ``` V = (M_virgin - M_recovered_from_product) / M W = (W_product + W_process) / M Where: M = Total mass of product M_virgin = Mass of virgin materials M_recovered_from_product = Mass recovered from product at end-of-life W_product = Unrecoverable waste from product at end-of-life W_process = Unrecoverable waste during production ``` MCI ranges from 0 (completely linear) to 1 (perfectly circular). ### 8.2 Circularity Score The overall circularity score (0-100) is calculated as: ``` Circularity Score = (R_in + L + D + R_out + Rep + E) / 6 Where: R_in = Recycled input score (0-100) L = Longevity score (0-100) D = Design for circularity score (0-100) R_out = End-of-life recovery score (0-100) Rep = Reparability score (0-100) E = Material efficiency score (0-100) ``` #### 8.2.1 Recycled Input Score ``` R_in = (Mass of recycled materials / Total mass) × 100 ``` #### 8.2.2 Longevity Score ``` L = min(100, (Actual lifespan / Expected lifespan) × 100) ``` #### 8.2.3 Design for Circularity Score Weighted average of: - Modular design (20%) - Disassemblability (20%) - Standardized components (15%) - Reparability index (20%) - Upgradeability (15%) - Material compatibility (10%) #### 8.2.4 End-of-Life Recovery Score ``` R_out = Recovery rate (%) ``` #### 8.2.5 Reparability Score ``` Rep = Reparability Index × 10 ``` #### 8.2.6 Material Efficiency Score ``` E = (Useful output mass / Total input mass) × 100 ``` ### 8.3 Circularity Rating Based on the circularity score: - **A (90-100)**: Excellent circularity - **B (80-89)**: Good circularity - **C (70-79)**: Moderate circularity - **D (60-69)**: Limited circularity - **E (0-59)**: Poor circularity ### 8.4 Resource Productivity ``` Resource Productivity = Economic value generated / Total material mass ``` Measured in currency per kilogram (e.g., USD/kg). ### 8.5 Waste Reduction Rate ``` Waste Reduction Rate = ((Baseline waste - Current waste) / Baseline waste) × 100 ``` ### 8.6 Circularity Assessment Report A comprehensive circularity assessment SHALL include: - Overall circularity score and rating - MCI value - Breakdown of sub-scores - Carbon footprint comparison (circular vs linear) - Waste reduction metrics - Resource productivity - Recommendations for improvement - Benchmark against industry average - Certification eligibility --- ## 9. Design for Circularity ### 9.1 Design Principles #### 9.1.1 Design for Durability Products SHALL be designed to: - Use robust, high-quality materials - Withstand expected usage conditions - Include protective features - Resist wear and degradation - Meet or exceed expected lifespan #### 9.1.2 Design for Disassembly Products SHALL be designed to: - Use reversible fasteners (screws, clips, snaps) - Avoid permanent adhesives where possible - Label material types on components - Provide disassembly instructions - Minimize disassembly time (< 30 minutes preferred) - Require only standard tools #### 9.1.3 Design for Modularity Products SHOULD be designed with: - Interchangeable modules - Standardized interfaces - Independent subsystems - Plug-and-play components - Common platforms across product lines #### 9.1.4 Design for Repair Products SHALL be designed to: - Provide access to commonly failing parts - Use standardized replacement parts - Include repair manuals - Make spare parts available for minimum 7 years - Price spare parts reasonably (< 30% of new product) #### 9.1.5 Design for Upgrade Products SHOULD enable: - Performance improvements over time - Component upgrades - Software updates - Backward compatibility - Future-proofing #### 9.1.6 Design for Recycling Products SHALL be designed to: - Use mono-materials where possible - Minimize material types (< 5 preferred) - Avoid composite materials - Use recyclable materials (> 90% by mass) - Label materials clearly - Separate incompatible materials ### 9.2 Reparability Index The reparability index (0-10) is calculated from five criteria: 1. **Documentation** (20%): Availability of repair manuals, diagrams 2. **Disassembly** (20%): Ease of accessing parts, tool requirements 3. **Part Availability** (20%): Access to spare parts, delivery time 4. **Part Price** (20%): Cost of spare parts relative to new product 5. **Product-Specific** (20%): Additional criteria per product category ### 9.3 Material Selection Guidelines #### 9.3.1 Preferred Materials - Recycled content > 50% - Recyclability > 90% - Non-toxic - Renewable or abundant - Durable #### 9.3.2 Restricted Materials Products SHOULD avoid: - Hazardous substances (RoHS, REACH) - Critical raw materials (unless recycled) - Materials difficult to recycle - Composite materials without separation capability - Microplastics ### 9.4 Design Documentation Design for circularity documentation SHALL include: - Material bill of materials (BOM) - Disassembly instructions with diagrams - Repair manual - Spare parts catalog - Expected lifetime by component - Recycling instructions - Material safety data sheets (MSDS) --- ## 10. Recycling and Recovery ### 10.1 Collection Systems #### 10.1.1 Take-Back Programs Manufacturers SHOULD implement take-back programs featuring: - Multiple collection points - Prepaid shipping labels - Drop-off locations - Incentive programs (discounts, credits) - Clear communication to consumers #### 10.1.2 Collection Targets Organizations SHALL set collection targets: - Minimum 75% collection rate within 5 years - 85% collection rate target within 10 years - Annual reporting of collection rates ### 10.2 Sorting and Separation #### 10.2.1 Manual Sorting For products requiring manual disassembly: - Train personnel on product disassembly - Follow manufacturer disassembly instructions - Separate materials into categories - Identify and remove hazardous components - Document material quantities #### 10.2.2 Automated Sorting For automated processing: - Use optical sorting for plastics - Use magnetic separation for ferrous metals - Use eddy current separation for non-ferrous metals - Use density separation for mixed materials - Use AI/vision systems for identification ### 10.3 Material Recovery #### 10.3.1 Recovery Targets Material recovery rates SHALL meet: - Metals: > 95% - Glass: > 90% - Plastics: > 75% - Electronics: > 85% - Batteries: > 90% #### 10.3.2 Recovery Quality Recovered materials SHALL meet quality standards: - Material purity > 95% - Contamination < 5% - Performance equivalent to virgin materials - Certification of quality ### 10.4 Recycling Routes #### 10.4.1 Mechanical Recycling Physical processes: - Shredding and grinding - Washing and cleaning - Melting and reforming - Extrusion - Maintains material structure #### 10.4.2 Chemical Recycling Chemical processes: - Pyrolysis - Gasification - Depolymerization - Solvolysis - Breaks down to molecular level #### 10.4.3 Biological Recycling For organic materials: - Composting - Anaerobic digestion - Enzyme treatment - Biodegradation ### 10.5 Recycling Facility Requirements Recycling facilities SHALL: - Hold relevant certifications (e.g., R2, e-Stewards) - Maintain environmental permits - Follow safety standards - Track material flows - Report recovery rates - Prevent export of hazardous waste - Ensure worker safety ### 10.6 Recycling Route Optimization The optimal recycling route SHALL be determined by: ``` Optimization Score = (Recovery Rate × 0.4) + (Economic Value × 0.3) + (Environmental Impact × 0.2) + (Distance × 0.1) Where all factors are normalized to 0-100 scale ``` --- ## Annex E — Implementation Notes for PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE The following implementation notes document field experience from pilot deployments and are non-normative. They are republished here so that early adopters can read them in context with the rest of PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE. - **Operational scope** — implementations SHOULD declare their operational scope (single-tenant, multi-tenant, federated) in the OpenAPI document so that downstream auditors can score the deployment against the correct conformance tier in Annex A. - **Schema evolution** — additive changes (new optional fields, new error codes) are non-breaking; renaming or removing fields, even in error payloads, MUST trigger a minor version bump. - **Audit retention** — a 7-year retention window is sufficient to satisfy ISO/IEC 17065:2012 audit expectations in most jurisdictions; some regulators require longer retention, in which case the deployment policy MUST extend the retention window rather than relying on this PHASE's defaults. - **Time synchronization** — sub-second deadlines depend on synchronized clocks. NTPv4 with stratum-2 servers is sufficient for most deadlines expressed in this PHASE; PTP is recommended for sites that require deterministic interlocks. - **Error budget reporting** — implementations SHOULD publish a monthly error-budget summary (latency p95, error rate, violation hours) in the format defined by the WIA reporting profile to facilitate cross-vendor comparison without exposing tenant-specific data. These notes are not requirements; they are a reference for field teams mapping their existing operations onto WIA conformance. ## Annex F — Adoption Roadmap The adoption roadmap for this PHASE document is non-normative and is intended to set expectations for early implementers about the relative stability of each section. - **Stable** (sections marked normative with `MUST` / `MUST NOT`) — semantic versioning applies; breaking changes require a major version bump and at minimum 90 days of overlap with the prior major version on all WIA-published reference implementations. - **Provisional** (sections in this Annex and Annex D) — items are tracked openly and may be promoted to normative status without a major version bump if community feedback supports promotion. - **Reference** (test vectors, simulator behaviour, the reference TypeScript SDK) — versioned independently of this document so that mistakes in reference material can be corrected without amending the published PHASE document. Implementers SHOULD subscribe to the WIA Standards GitHub release notifications to track promotions between these tiers. Comments on the roadmap are accepted via the GitHub issues tracker on the WIA-Official organization. The roadmap is reviewed at every minor version of this PHASE document, and the review outcomes are recorded in the version-history table at the start of the document. ## Annex G — Test Vectors and Conformance Evidence This annex describes how implementations capture and publish conformance evidence for PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE. The procedure is non-normative; it standardizes the shape of evidence so that auditors and downstream integrators can compare implementations without re-running the full test matrix. - **Test vectors** — every normative requirement in this PHASE has at least one positive vector and one negative vector under `tests/phase-vectors/phase-2-api-interface/`. Implementations claiming conformance MUST run all vectors in CI and publish the resulting pass/fail matrix in their compliance package. - **Evidence package** — the compliance package is a tarball containing the SBOM (CycloneDX 1.5 or SPDX 2.3), the OpenAPI document, the test vector matrix, and a signed manifest. Signatures use Sigstore (DSSE envelope, Rekor transparency log entry) so that downstream consumers can verify provenance without trusting a private CA. - **Quarterly recheck** — implementations re-publish the evidence package every quarter even if no source change occurred, so that consumers can detect environmental drift (compiler updates, dependency updates, OS updates) without polling vendor changelogs. - **Cross-vendor crosswalk** — the WIA Standards working group maintains a crosswalk that maps each vector to the equivalent assertion in adjacent industry programs (where one exists), so an implementer that already certifies under one program can show conformance to PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE with reduced incremental effort. - **Negative-result reporting** — vendors MUST report negative results with the same fidelity as positive ones. A test that is skipped without recorded justification is treated by auditors as a failure. These conventions are intended to make conformance evidence portable and machine-readable so that adoption of PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE does not require bespoke auditor tooling. ## Annex H — Versioning and Deprecation Policy This annex codifies the versioning and deprecation policy for PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE. It is non-normative; the rules below describe the policy that the WIA Standards working group commits to when amending this PHASE document. - **Semantic versioning** — major / minor / patch components follow Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 (https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html). Major bump indicates a backwards-incompatible change to a normative requirement; minor bump indicates new normative requirements that do not break existing implementations; patch bump indicates editorial changes only (clarifications, typo fixes, formatting). - **Deprecation window** — when a normative requirement is removed or altered in a backwards-incompatible way, the prior major version is maintained in parallel for at least 180 days. During the parallel window, both major versions are marked Stable in the WIA Standards registry and either may be cited as "WIA-conformant". - **Sunset notification** — deprecated major versions enter a 12-month sunset window during which the WIA registry marks the version as Deprecated. The deprecation entry includes a migration note pointing to the replacement requirement(s) and an explanation of why the change was made. - **Editorial errata** — patch-level errata are issued without a deprecation window because they do not change normative behaviour. Errata are tracked in a public errata register and each entry is signed by the WIA Standards working group chair. - **Implementation changelog mapping** — implementations SHOULD publish a changelog mapping each PHASE version they support to the specific build, container digest, or SDK version that satisfies the version. This allows downstream auditors to verify version conformance without re-running the entire test matrix on every release. The policy is reviewed at the same cadence as the PHASE document and any changes to the policy itself are tracked in the version-history table at the start of the document. ## Annex I — Interoperability Profiles This annex describes how implementations declare interoperability profiles for PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE. The profile mechanism is non-normative and exists so that deployments of varying scope (single tenant, regional cluster, federated network) can advertise the subset of normative requirements they satisfy without misrepresenting partial conformance as full conformance. - **Profile manifest** — every implementation publishes a profile manifest in JSON. The manifest enumerates the normative requirement IDs from this PHASE that are satisfied (`status: "supported"`), partially satisfied (`status: "partial"`, with a reason field), or excluded (`status: "excluded"`, with a justification). The manifest is signed using the same Sigstore key used for the SBOM in Annex G. - **Federation profile** — federated deployments publish an aggregated manifest summarizing the union and intersection of member-implementation profiles. The aggregated manifest is consumed by directory services so that callers can route a request to the least common denominator profile required for an interaction. - **Backwards-profile compatibility** — when a deployment migrates from one profile to a wider profile, the prior profile manifest remains valid and signed for the deprecation window defined in Annex H. This preserves audit traceability for auditors evaluating long-term interoperability. - **Profile registry** — the WIA Standards working group maintains a public registry of named profiles. Common deployment shapes (e.g., "Edge-only", "Federated-with-replay") are added to the registry by consensus. Registry entries are immutable; new shapes are added under new names rather than amending existing entries. - **Profile versioning** — profile names are versioned with the same Semantic Versioning rules described in Annex H. A deployment that advertises `WIA-P2-API-INTERFACE-Edge-only/2` is asserting conformance with the second major version of the named profile, not the second deployment of an unversioned profile. The profile mechanism is intentionally lightweight; it is meant to make real deployment shapes visible without forcing every deployment to satisfy every normative requirement. ## Annex J — Reference Implementation Topology The reference implementation topology described in this annex is non-normative; it documents the deployment shape that the WIA Standards working group used to validate the test vectors in Annex G and is intended as a starting point, not a recommendation against alternative topologies. - **Single-tenant edge** — one runtime per organization, no shared state. Used for early-pilot deployments where conformance evidence is published manually. Sufficient for PHASE-2-API-INTERFACE validation when the organization signs the manifest itself. - **Multi-tenant gateway** — one shared runtime serves multiple tenants via header-based isolation. Typically backed by a rate-limited gateway (Envoy or NGINX) and a shared OAuth 2.1 identity provider. The manifest is per-tenant; the runtime publishes a federation manifest that aggregates tenant manifests. - **Federated mesh** — multiple runtimes peer to one another and publish their manifests to a directory service. Each peer signs its own manifest; the directory service signs the aggregated index. This is the topology used by cross-organization deployments that need to compose conformance. - **Air-gapped batch** — no network connection between the runtime and the directory service. The runtime emits a signed evidence package on each batch and the operator transports the package via out-of-band channels. This is the topology used by regulators that prohibit live connectivity from sensitive environments. Implementations declare their topology in the manifest (see Annex I). A topology change MUST be reflected in a new manifest signature; the prior topology's manifest remains valid for the deprecation window described in Annex H to preserve audit traceability.