The same fact lived in nine hand-kept places and they disagreed about 58
proposals. This makes the file the only authority and everything else a
projection of it.
ONE VOCABULARY, in vocabulary.json, read by the lint, the generator and the
doc site. Three words, each answering "can I rely on this?" and nothing else:
Draft nothing implements it yet, or its own text says the work is ahead
Final the thing it specifies exists in the code
Living governance and process: amended in place, never finished
Eight spellings folded in. `Active` was the one doing real damage: on four Meta
and Process HIPs it meant living, on 48 others it meant shipped, and one word
doing two jobs is why nothing agreed. `Review` and `Last Call` described a
queue rather than a document, and a proposal under review is still one you
cannot build against.
STATUS IS EARNED, not declared. Every Standards Track proposal was checked
against the estate: 235 have their implementation, and eight do not and say so.
HIP-0095 carries a twelve-week plan ending at "mainnet launch" and has no code.
HIP-0525 specifies an all-machine meeting while apps/meet refuses a machine a
seat. HIP-0078 names a prover at a "planned location" that does not exist.
HIP-0114 is the cog.* procedure set, and that procedure set returns nothing.
HIP-0003, HIP-0102, HIP-0305 and HIP-0901 likewise: looked, found nothing.
SIXTEEN TOMBSTONES DELETED rather than statused. A dead document kept alive in
the index is one concept wearing two names. Each successor exists and carries
the text, and the 90 references that pointed at a tombstone now point at it --
whole markdown links at once, so link text cannot outlive its target. Three of
the sixteen were pure compatibility: HIP-0028 specified a migration off a
Bitnami chart, HIP-0029 dual-engine MySQL, HIP-0030 a schema-deprecation
policy. We ship no backwards compatibility, so we do not specify it.
Nine links were already broken and had been since the corpus was renumbered:
short-form ./hip-5.md paths that never existed. Two named the wrong proposal --
one cited "HIP-1: Hanzo Multimodal Models" where multimodal is HIP-0003.
THE GENERATOR REFUSES more often than it writes, because a short table looks
exactly as authoritative as a complete one. Rows must equal files; a shrinking
index must say by how much; a section whose input is missing is an error, not
an omission; nothing is written until all of it validates. Its self-test breaks
the corpus eleven ways and requires each to refuse AND leave README byte-
identical -- a guard that reports after half-writing has protected nothing.
The lint's second implementation of the same comparison is gone.
The site rendered 52 proposals with a fallback grey badge and counted them
toward none of its three stat tiles, because docs/lib/source.ts declared a
status union by hand: it admitted a `Stagnant` no file has ever carried and
omitted the one 52 files did. Five components each kept their own copy of the
colours. All six now read vocabulary.json.
This HIP establishes the framework for responsible sourcing across Hanzo AI's supply chain, including compute infrastructure, hardware, data, and services. It defines standards for environmental, social, and governance criteria in supplier selection and ongoing management.
Scope
Supply Chain Categories
Category
Components
ESG Relevance
Compute
Cloud providers, data centers
Energy, carbon, labor
Hardware
GPUs, servers, networking
Materials, labor, e-waste
Data
Training data, annotations
Privacy, labor, consent
Services
Software, consulting, contractors
Labor, security, ethics
Tier Classification
Tier
Definition
Due Diligence Level
Critical
>$1M annual spend or core to operations
Full assessment
Significant
$100K-$1M annual spend
Standard assessment
Standard
<$100K annual spend
Basic assessment
Compute Sourcing
Cloud Provider Standards
Cloud Provider Environmental Criteria
Criterion
Requirement
Weight
Renewable energy
>50% renewable, trajectory to 100%
High
Carbon reporting
Public Scope 1, 2, 3 emissions
High
PUE
<1.3 average
Medium
Water usage
WUE reporting, reduction targets
Medium
E-waste
Responsible disposal, circularity
Medium
Cloud Provider Social Criteria
Criterion
Requirement
Weight
Labor practices
Fair labor certification
High
Supply chain
Conflict mineral due diligence
Medium
Community impact
Local hiring, engagement
Low
Governance Criteria
Criterion
Requirement
Weight
Security
SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001
High
Privacy
GDPR compliance, data residency
High
Business continuity
Disaster recovery, SLAs
Medium
Transparency
Public sustainability reports
Medium
Provider Assessment
Current Provider Evaluation
Provider
Renewable %
Carbon Neutral
PUE
Assessment
AWS
100% by 2025
2040 target
1.2
Acceptable
GCP
100% matched
Carbon neutral
1.1
Preferred
Azure
100% by 2025
2030 target
1.2
Acceptable
Region Selection
Prioritize regions with:
Lowest carbon intensity
Highest renewable percentage
Acceptable latency
Data residency compliance
Data Center Requirements
For colocation or owned infrastructure:
Requirement
Standard
Renewable energy
100% or credible pathway
PUE
<1.4
Water efficiency
WUE <1.0 L/kWh
Certifications
ISO 14001, ISO 50001
Location
Climate-resilient, low-carbon grid
Hardware Sourcing
GPU & Server Standards
Hardware Environmental Criteria
Criterion
Requirement
Manufacturer sustainability
Public ESG commitments
Energy efficiency
Current generation, efficient design
Conflict minerals
Conflict-free sourcing certification
Packaging
Minimal, recyclable packaging
Hardware Social Criteria
Criterion
Requirement
Labor practices
RBA (Responsible Business Alliance) membership
Supply chain audits
Third-party labor audits
Health & safety
Documented H&S programs
Hardware Lifecycle
Procurement
Practice
Implementation
Right-sizing
Match hardware to actual needs
Consolidation
Shared resources where possible
Efficiency focus
Latest generation for efficiency
Operation
Practice
Implementation
Utilization tracking
Monitor and optimize usage
Maintenance
Proper maintenance for longevity
Lifecycle planning
Plan refresh cycles
End-of-Life
Practice
Implementation
Reuse
Internal redeployment first
Resale
Certified resale for working equipment
Recycling
R2/e-Stewards certified recyclers
Data destruction
Certified data destruction
Data Sourcing
Training Data Standards
Consent & Rights
Requirement
Standard
Licensing
Clear commercial use rights
Consent
Appropriate consent for personal data
Attribution
Proper attribution where required
Opt-out
Respect opt-out requests
Quality & Ethics
Requirement
Standard
No stolen content
Due diligence on data sources
No illegal content
Filtering for illegal material
Bias review
Assessment of representation
Privacy protection
PII handling procedures
Annotation & Labeling
Labor Standards
Requirement
Standard
Fair wages
Living wage in local context
Working conditions
Reasonable hours, breaks
Worker wellbeing
Support for disturbing content
Transparency
Disclosed labor practices
Provider Assessment
Criterion
Evaluation
Wage verification
Third-party or self-reported
Conditions audit
Annual assessment
Worker feedback
Grievance mechanisms
Certifications
B Corp, Fair Trade, or equivalent
Data Provider Selection
Tier
Due Diligence
Primary
Full assessment, ongoing monitoring
Secondary
Standard assessment, periodic review
Incidental
Basic assessment, terms review
Services & Contractors
Software & Services
Category
ESG Criteria
SaaS
Security, privacy, accessibility
Consulting
Labor practices, D&I
Contractors
Fair treatment, proper classification
Contractor Standards
Requirement
Standard
Classification
Proper employee/contractor classification
Benefits
Appropriate benefits for relationship
Payment
Timely, fair payment
Conditions
Reasonable working conditions
Supplier Management
Assessment Process
Initial Assessment
1. Categorize by tier
↓
2. Complete assessment questionnaire
↓
3. Review publicly available information
↓
4. Conduct due diligence (tier-appropriate)
↓
5. Score against criteria
↓
6. Make selection decision
Ongoing Monitoring
Activity
Frequency
Tier
Performance review
Quarterly
Critical
ESG review
Annual
Critical, Significant
News monitoring
Continuous
Critical
Re-assessment
Biennial
All
Supplier Scorecard
Dimension
Weight
Criteria
Environmental
30%
Carbon, energy, waste
Social
30%
Labor, community, safety
Governance
20%
Ethics, transparency, security
Performance
20%
Quality, reliability, cost
Issue Management
Issue Severity
Severity
Examples
Response
Critical
Human rights violation, major breach
Immediate suspension
High
Labor violations, significant ESG failure
Remediation plan
Medium
Policy gaps, minor violations
Improvement plan
Low
Documentation gaps, minor issues
Noted for improvement
Remediation Process
Issue identified
↓
Severity assessment
↓
Supplier notification
↓
Remediation plan development
↓
Implementation monitoring
↓
Verification
↓
Closure or escalation
zeekay
ad5a010f79