Shown, not told · Concept-labeled · Unlisted · Not affiliated

A peatland-rewetting work receipt, running end to end, mapped onto your own CRCF category

Act one is not a mock: it is the shape of what EWP's settle→retire pipeline already does on Base mainnet. Act two is the one concept addition: a CRCF activity-category tag on the receipt, shown against the taxonomy Carbon Gap's own tracker already publishes.

Read this first. Act one narrates EWP's real, live settlement flow (funded → claimed → proof → approved → settled on Base → carbon retired) against a real CRCF activity category (peatland/organic-soil rewetting, delegated act adopted 10 Jul 2026). Act two is clearly marked Concept, a cross-reference field we would add to our own work-definition schema, not something Carbon Gap has published or endorsed.

Act One: Live shape

A funded packet becomes an on-chain, independently re-checkable receipt

1

Packet funded: peatland-rewetting monitoring, one dip-well transect

A bounded work packet: log water-table depth at three fixed dip-wells before and after a drainage-ditch-blocking intervention, photograph the blocked ditch with GPS, count Sphagnum/sedge re-establishment along a fixed transect.

$ ewp:work:post --standard peatland_rewetting_mrv_v1 --wage 0.35 ✓ posted workId=51203 wage=$0.35 proofRequired=[photo, gps, dipwell_reading×3, transect_count]
2

Claimed and proof submitted

A human or agent claims the packet, does the fieldwork, and submits proof: photo, GPS coordinate, and the three dip-well readings plus the vegetation transect count, the exact evidence shape a peatland-rewetting MRV visit requires.

POST /labor/work/51203/proof { photo, gps: [52.9012, 5.2103], dipwell_cm: [38, 41, 36], transect_sphagnum_pct: 62 } 200 OK status="proof_submitted" workId=51203
3

Approved and settled on Base

Proof approved; the packet settles on-chain against the EWP contract, wage paid, a computed ecological footprint carried alongside it.

$ ewp:work:settle --id 51203 ✓ settled workId=51203 wage=$0.35 tCO2e_share=0.00019 tx=0x4a1e…c7d3 (Base, contract 0x76c17C…A14B)
4

Footprint retired through the existing Klima/Regen rail

The same gasless relay EWP already runs hourly on a gas-gated cron, no new integration for this packet type.

GET https://v0.x402.klimalabs.com/api/quote?chainId=8453&inputToken=USDC&amount=0.00019 200 OK retirement resolves → public Carbonmark certificate, txHash=0x91a2…fe08
What comes back: an on-chain transaction, a public retirement certificate, and a proof record (photo, GPS, dip-well readings, transect count) anyone can independently re-check, not a report asking to be trusted, a receipt anyone can verify themselves. This is the "real, durable, measurable, independently verified" bar named in Carbon Gap's own May 2026 survey (finding 1 of the capability brief), already running, not a proposal.

Act Two: Concept addition Concept

Tagging the receipt against Carbon Gap's own CRCF taxonomy

Everything in Act One runs today under our own generic standard_ref field (VCS-style). The concept below is one added cross-reference: pointing the same field at the CRCF activity category Carbon Gap's own tracker defines, so the receipt is legible against that taxonomy without changing anything about how it settles or retires.

Today

{
  "workId": 51203,
  "standard": "peatland_rewetting_mrv_v1",
  "standard_ref": "internal library only"
}

# no cross-reference to any EU regulatory
# taxonomy — a CRCF-interested reader has
# to already know our internal naming

Concept: CRCF cross-reference added

{
  "workId": 51203,
  "standard": "peatland_rewetting_mrv_v1",
  "standard_ref": {
    "internal": "peatland_rewetting_mrv_v1",
    "crcf_activity": "carbon-farming/peatland-organic-soil-rewetting",
    "crcf_regulation": "EU 2024/3012",
    "crcf_delegated_act_date": "2026-07-10"
  }
}
# same receipt, same settlement, same retirement —
# now legible against the taxonomy Carbon Gap's
# own tracker.carbongap.org/policy/crcf/ defines

This concept field changes nothing about how the packet is funded, proved, settled, or retired: it only adds a citation. It does not claim CRCF-recognized-methodology status; that recognition process (opened 7 May 2026) is a separate, formal certification-scheme step this brief does not claim to have taken.

Act one is real, ours, and running today. Act two is one field we would add to our own schema, pointing at a taxonomy Carbon Gap already publishes, not asking Carbon Gap to publish anything new. The receipt already answers the "independently verified" bar your own survey names; this just makes it legible against your own categories.

→ See the drafted schema and method-template files themselves in the Agent Kit

← Back to the hub
Provisioned by EcoWealth · Digital Provisioning Protocol · provenance‑sealed