Skip to content
GridNinja

Evidence object

Accepted-headroom ledger specification

An accepted-headroom ledger records only the capacity that passed the declared evidence and dispatch-envelope checks for a specific site context and time window. Each entry links the accepted quantity to its request, binding constraint, remaining margin, evidence versions, authority boundary, and expiry conditions. It prevents modeled or claimed headroom from being silently treated as durable sellable MW.

Definition

What it is

The ledger is an append-oriented capacity accounting record with explicit lineage from request to proof-adjusted acceptance.

Category boundary

What it is not

It is not an energy bill, DCIM inventory, commercial settlement statement, or guarantee that a past acceptance remains valid under changed conditions.

Operational significance

Why operators care

Facilities, commercial, and assurance teams can reconcile which capacity was accepted, what evidence supported it, and why later entries changed or expired.

Mechanism

How the decision path works

  1. Step 01

    Reference the original capacity request and evaluation context.

  2. Step 02

    Record accepted quantity, duration, binding constraint, and margin.

  3. Step 03

    Attach evidence versions, authority boundary, and rollback posture.

  4. Step 04

    Append correction, expiry, or retraction records without erasing prior state.

Textual diagram equivalent

Decision flow

Capacity request → proof adjustment → accepted entry → active monitoring → expiry, correction, or re-evaluation → linked ledger history.

Synthetic ledger entry

Visibly scoped example

Synthetic illustrative scenario—not a customer or production result. A time-bounded accepted quantity expires when topology version or telemetry freshness no longer matches the recorded evaluation context.

Evidence record

Scope before result

This record keeps the claim, environment, evidence maturity, and review boundary together. Publication status is not a substitute for named technical ownership or independent review.

Claim
The proposed ledger schema preserves capacity lineage, evidence references, and expiry conditions.
Maturity
DESIGN TARGET
Environment
synthetic
Measurement window
Illustrative entries use declared start, end, and evidence-expiry timestamps.
Sample size
One schema and one synthetic example.
Version
1.0.0-publication-candidate
Artifact hash
See the versioned release manifest for per-file digests.
Result
A reviewable schema candidate is supplied; no production ledger is represented.
Uncertainty
Operator usability, scale, and external interoperability remain unreviewed.
Interpretation
Use the candidate to review evidence lineage and capacity-accounting semantics.
Technical owner
Unassigned — publication remains gated
Reviewer
Unassigned — no independent review is claimed
Next review
Not scheduled until named ownership is approved

Assumptions

  • Append-oriented records
  • UTC timestamps
  • Stable evidence identifiers

Method

  • Validate required lineage fields
  • Verify expiry representation
  • Verify corrections can reference superseded entries

Negative and no-proof cases

  • Missing expiry
  • Duplicate capacity
  • Overwritten correction
  • Unresolved evidence reference

Reproduction procedure

  • Download the proof-pack schema and example
  • Run the validator
  • Inspect the acceptedHeadroomLedger entry and references
Download the versioned artifact

Failure and no-proof cases

  • Accepted quantity lacks a declared duration or expiry condition.
  • Later corrections overwrite rather than reference the prior record.
  • The same reserve or headroom is counted in overlapping entries.

Limitations

  • The ledger structure does not independently prove the correctness of its inputs.
  • Commercial use requires reconciliation with contracts and operating procedures.
  • The example release is synthetic and publication-gated.

Evidence and sources

Inspect the basis, not just the answer

Local evidence objects show the GridNinja proof contract. Primary sources provide external standards and risk-management context; they do not validate GridNinja performance.

Proof before autonomy

Test the evidence boundary against your capacity question

Start with a Capacity Audit or read-only Shadow Mode discussion. GridNinja does not require control authority to identify where a capacity claim remains unproven.