What we have not settled yet.

The eligibility bar is a policy dial. It should anchor to a published benchmark and be set precisely with a certification body rather than fixed by a draft. Where exactly the bar sits, and whether a premium tier for facilities well under it belongs alongside it, is open.

Do the originated attributes, timing and restraint, need an additionality test, the way vintage rules and some credit schemes require? The honest posture is to argue it, not assume it. This is open.

The chosen clean-window definition is inherited from a matched granular certificate. Whether to carry a marginal-emissions-impact attribute alongside it, as a secondary signal rather than the gate, is an open question tracked against the evolving accounting guidance.

Whether PFAS and other water or environmental attributes become future gate slots or additional recorded attributes on the certificate. Open, and dependent on measurable, traceable data.

Restraint cannot be certified as a mere absence of activity. The conservative default counts a hold as evidenced restraint only when deadline-bearing work could have run in a dirtier window and was deferred to a clean one. This rule is provisional, pending real-workload validation.

Shipped for the MISO footprint: the public meter runs on EIA-930 hourly data (U.S. EIA, federal public domain) with attribution and a measured delay label, degrading to a labeled simulator if the feed drops. The private operator feed stays internal by its terms of use. Still open: an equivalent public-domain source for the Quebec grid.