# WIA-IND-030 PHASE 3 — Protocol Specification **Standard:** WIA-IND-030 **Phase:** 3 — Protocol **Version:** 1.0 **Status:** Stable **Source:** synthesized from the original `PHASE-1-DATA-FORMAT.md` (quarter 3 of 4) --- ## 11. Extended Producer Responsibility ### 11.1 EPR Principles Extended Producer Responsibility requires manufacturers to: - Take responsibility for products throughout lifecycle - Design products for circularity - Finance collection and recycling systems - Meet collection and recycling targets - Report compliance data - Pay EPR fees where applicable ### 11.2 EPR Program Requirements #### 11.2.1 Program Structure EPR programs SHALL include: - Legal entity responsible for operations - Governance structure - Financing mechanism - Collection network - Recycling partners - Communication plan - Reporting system #### 11.2.2 Coverage EPR programs SHALL cover: - All products sold in regulated markets - Full product lifecycle from sale to end-of-life - All material types in products - Collection, transport, and processing costs ### 11.3 Collection Targets #### 11.3.1 Minimum Targets EPR programs SHALL achieve minimum collection rates: - Year 1: 60% of products sold - Year 2: 65% of products sold - Year 3: 70% of products sold - Year 4: 75% of products sold - Year 5: 80% of products sold #### 11.3.2 Recycling Targets EPR programs SHALL achieve minimum recycling rates: - Year 1: 85% of collected products - Year 2: 87% of collected products - Year 3: 90% of collected products - Year 4: 92% of collected products - Year 5: 95% of collected products ### 11.4 EPR Fees #### 11.4.1 Fee Structure EPR fees SHALL be: - Proportional to product environmental impact - Based on product weight and materials - Adjusted for recyclability (eco-modulation) - Transparent and publicly disclosed - Used exclusively for EPR program operations #### 11.4.2 Eco-Modulation Fee modulation based on circularity: - Products with > 90% recyclability: -20% fee - Products with recycled content > 80%: -15% fee - Products with reparability index > 8: -10% fee - Products difficult to recycle: +50% fee - Products with hazardous materials: +100% fee ### 11.5 Reporting Requirements #### 11.5.1 Quarterly Reports - Products sold (units and mass) - Products collected (units and mass) - Collection rate - Geographic breakdown - Fees collected #### 11.5.2 Annual Reports - Comprehensive program performance - Products recycled (units and mass) - Recycling rate - Material recovery by type - Environmental impact assessment - Financial audit - Compliance status - Improvement plans ### 11.6 Compliance Verification EPR compliance SHALL be verified through: - Third-party audits - Data validation - Facility inspections - Sampling and testing - Stakeholder feedback - Regulatory review --- ## 12. Sharing Economy and Product-as-a-Service ### 12.1 Sharing Economy Models #### 12.1.1 Peer-to-Peer Sharing Platforms enabling individuals to share products: - Rental marketplaces - Tool libraries - Vehicle sharing - Accommodation sharing - Equipment sharing #### 12.1.2 B2C Sharing Businesses offering shared access: - Subscription services - Leasing programs - Rental services - Access-based models #### 12.1.3 B2B Sharing Business-to-business sharing: - Equipment pooling - Warehouse sharing - Transport optimization - Industrial symbiosis ### 12.2 Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) #### 12.2.1 PaaS Characteristics - Customer pays for performance/output, not ownership - Provider retains ownership and responsibility - Maintenance and repairs included - Take-back guaranteed - Optimized for longevity and circularity #### 12.2.2 PaaS Models **Performance-Based**: Pay per unit of service - Lighting-as-a-Service (lux-hours) - Mobility-as-a-Service (miles/kilometers) - Heating-as-a-Service (comfortable temperature-hours) **Access-Based**: Pay for access rights - Subscription (monthly/annual) - Pay-per-use - Time-based rental **Result-Based**: Pay for outcomes - Clean clothes (not washing machines) - Nutrient management (not fertilizer) - Pest control (not pesticides) ### 12.3 PaaS Requirements #### 12.3.1 Product Requirements Products used in PaaS SHALL be: - Designed for durability (2-3× normal lifespan) - Easily maintained and repaired - Modular for component replacement - Tracked with sensors and connectivity - Covered by service agreement #### 12.3.2 Service Requirements PaaS offerings SHALL include: - Preventive maintenance schedule - Repair and replacement services - Performance monitoring - Customer support - Take-back at end-of-service - Clear service level agreements (SLAs) ### 12.4 Utilization Optimization #### 12.4.1 Utilization Metrics ``` Utilization Rate = (Actual usage hours / Available hours) × 100 Target: > 70% for shared products ``` #### 12.4.2 Efficiency Improvements Sharing increases resource efficiency by: - Reducing idle time - Serving more users per product - Optimizing product specifications - Enabling professional maintenance ### 12.5 Sharing Platform Requirements Sharing platforms SHALL provide: - User verification and trust systems - Product condition assessment - Insurance and liability coverage - Payment processing - Booking and scheduling systems - Usage tracking - Damage reporting - Dispute resolution - Environmental impact metrics --- ## 13. Waste Management ### 13.1 Waste Hierarchy Waste management SHALL follow the priority order: 1. **Prevention**: Avoid waste generation 2. **Minimization**: Reduce waste quantity 3. **Reuse**: Use products/materials again 4. **Recycling**: Process into new products 5. **Recovery**: Extract energy or value 6. **Disposal**: Landfill only as last resort ### 13.2 Waste Stream Classification #### 13.2.1 Waste Types - **Production Waste**: Manufacturing scrap and by-products - **Packaging Waste**: Shipping and consumer packaging - **End-of-Life Products**: Discarded products - **Food Waste**: Organic waste from operations - **Hazardous Waste**: Regulated dangerous materials - **Electronic Waste**: E-waste and batteries - **Construction Waste**: Building materials #### 13.2.2 Waste Characterization Each waste stream SHALL be characterized by: - Material composition - Quantity (mass) - Generation rate - Hazard classification - Treatment method - Destination facility - Cost ### 13.3 Waste Reduction Targets #### 13.3.1 Zero Waste Certification To achieve Zero Waste certification: - Divert > 90% of waste from landfill - Document all waste streams - Implement waste reduction programs - Continuously improve waste performance - Third-party verification #### 13.3.2 Waste Intensity ``` Waste Intensity = Total waste (kg) / Production output (units or revenue) Target: Year-over-year reduction of 5% ``` ### 13.4 Waste-to-Resource #### 13.4.1 Industrial Symbiosis Organizations SHOULD establish symbiotic relationships: - Waste from one process becomes input to another - Share resources and utilities - Exchange by-products - Collaborate on waste treatment - Create circular loops #### 13.4.2 Upcycling Transform waste into higher-value products: - Redesign and repurpose - Artistic and creative applications - Premium material recovery - Add value through processing ### 13.5 Waste Tracking #### 13.5.1 Waste Metrics Organizations SHALL track: - Total waste generated (kg) - Waste by type (kg and %) - Landfill diversion rate (%) - Recycling rate (%) - Composting rate (%) - Energy recovery (%) - Waste reduction rate (%) - Cost of waste management #### 13.5.2 Reporting Waste data SHALL be: - Tracked monthly - Reported quarterly - Audited annually - Publicly disclosed - Benchmarked against peers --- ## 14. Sustainability and Carbon Metrics ### 14.1 Carbon Footprint #### 14.1.1 Lifecycle Carbon Assessment Carbon footprint SHALL be calculated for: - **Materials**: Extraction, processing, transport - **Manufacturing**: Energy, emissions, waste - **Distribution**: Transport, packaging - **Use Phase**: Energy consumption, maintenance - **End-of-Life**: Collection, recycling, disposal #### 14.1.2 Carbon Calculation ``` Total Carbon = C_materials + C_manufacturing + C_distribution + C_use + C_end_of_life Where each component is measured in kg CO2 equivalent ``` #### 14.1.3 Circular vs Linear Comparison ``` Carbon Savings = C_virgin - C_circular Carbon Reduction % = (C_savings / C_virgin) × 100 ``` ### 14.2 Water Footprint ``` Water Footprint = Direct water use + Indirect water use (supply chain) Measured in liters or cubic meters ``` ### 14.3 Resource Depletion Track consumption of: - Non-renewable resources - Critical raw materials - Scarce resources - Energy sources ### 14.4 Biodiversity Impact Assess impact on: - Land use - Habitat disruption - Species threats - Ecosystem services ### 14.5 Sustainability Reporting #### 14.5.1 Environmental Metrics - Greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, 3) - Energy consumption (renewable %) - Water consumption - Waste generation - Material intensity - Circularity rate - Biodiversity impact #### 14.5.2 Social Metrics - Worker safety (incident rate) - Fair labor practices - Diversity and inclusion - Community impact - Supply chain responsibility #### 14.5.3 Governance Metrics - Sustainability policies - Compliance rate - Transparency - Stakeholder engagement - Certification compliance --- ## Annex E — Implementation Notes for PHASE-3-PROTOCOL 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-3-PROTOCOL. - **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-3-PROTOCOL. 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-3-protocol/`. 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-3-PROTOCOL 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-3-PROTOCOL does not require bespoke auditor tooling. ## Annex H — Versioning and Deprecation Policy This annex codifies the versioning and deprecation policy for PHASE-3-PROTOCOL. 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-3-PROTOCOL. 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-P3-PROTOCOL-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-3-PROTOCOL 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.