Vealth · Ecological Work Appellations

A name that means place, method, and proof, or it means nothing.

A shop on a sidewalk earns its name by being at that address, run by that owner, selling what it says it sells. Wine went further, hundreds of years ago: a bottle labeled Chablis is legally bound to a mapped place, a set of grapes, and a method, and someone checks. An Ecological Work Appellation (EWA) is that same idea applied to a piece of restoration work: a registered name for a place, good only for work that is actually done there, actually done to a named standard, and actually proven before it settles.

What an appellation is here

The United States' AVA system binds a wine name to geography alone: draw a boundary, prove grapes came from inside it, done. It works, but it is the weak version of the idea; the label says where a wine is from and nothing about how it was made. France's AOC and Italy's DOC/DOCG bind a name to geography AND method AND some form of verification, and that stronger binding is what makes a name worth paying more for. An EWA follows the stronger pattern on purpose:

A name binds place and method and proof, or it binds nothing.

In practice, one registry entry ties together a boundary (a place), the work standards a packet must actually be served under (a method, the same standards our work library already uses), a ladder of larger standards the work climbs toward (LBC, Michelin, or the UN SDGs), a proof rule, and a plain machine-checkable test for whether any given packet has earned the right to wear the name. The research behind this page: docs/backlog/generated/wine-institution-stack-research-2026-07-31.md, Brief 1.

The registry

One appellation exists so far, drawn honestly from the board's own data rather than invented: the densest real cluster of posted restoration and hardening work on the board sits around Concow, Yankee Hill, and Feather Falls in Butte County, California, inside the 2020 North Complex fire scar. That cluster is the first name.

Petitioned

Butte County Fire-Scar Restoration

Post-fire recovery work in the residential and forest-edge parcels around Concow, Yankee Hill, and Feather Falls: replanting, hazard-tree clearing, erosion control, and home hardening against the next fire.

Boundary
A 15 km circle centered at 39.676, −121.393 (Concow / Yankee Hill / Feather Falls). Covers 139 of the 143 posted fire-recovery definitions at that address family on the live board, and all of the ones actually served under the standards below.
Method (standards served)
civic_safetypollinator_habitat_establishmentresidential_envelope_maintenancestorm_drain_repair_cleantree_planting_establishmentwater_efficiencywatershed_health
Work classes
post_fire_conifer_seedling_plantingtree_plantingdefensible_space_zone0_noncombustible_clearinghazard_tree_removalhazard_tree_document_surveypost_fire_hillslope_erosion_wattle_installpost_fire_pollinator_meadow_plantingember_resistant_vent_mesh_installhome_hardening_gutter_guard_installclean_gutters_downspoutsforest_road_waterbar_maintenancedriveway_culvert_debris_flow_surveydriveway_culvert_debris_flow_clearingtrail_drainage_dip_maintenancereservoir_shoreline_debris_cleanuproadside_litter_removalinstall_low_flow_fixtureswater_storage_tank_ash_contamination_document_surveywater_storage_tank_ash_flush_and_sealwater_bill_affordability_document_surveyexterior_trim_repaint_apply
Standard ladder
SDG 15, Life on LandSDG 13, Climate ActionSDG 6, Clean WaterSDG Restoration Leadership
Proof rule
Every packet's own proof rule applies in full (photo, GPS waypoint, a labeled reading). On top of that, the appellation adds one clause: the proof must be anchored (SHA-256, batched to Base and rolled to Ethereum mainnet weekly) before the packet settles, never after.
Label rule
A packet may wear this name only if at least 85% of its geolocated occurrences fall inside the boundary, AND its method matches one of the standards above, AND its proof is anchored before settlement. All three, every time; the check is apps/api/src/lib/ewa.ts, and it names every failed clause rather than a bare pass or fail.
Spec hash
Not yet anchored (null). Anchoring the spec is the next step before this name moves from petitioned to registered.

What this registry does not claim: it does not say the work behind this name has ecological outcome proof beyond the settled and anchored packet record, it does not promise a price premium, and no packet has yet been posted, claimed, or settled under this name. A registered name is a rule a packet can meet, not a guarantee that one has.

How a packet earns the name

Three clauses, checked by machine, every one required. Fail any clause and the packet still exists, it just may not display the name.

1

In the place

At least 85% of the packet's geolocated occurrences fall inside the registered boundary, the same threshold the US AVA rule uses for grapes sourced from inside a wine region.

2

By the method

The packet's standard matches one of the standards the appellation actually registers work under, not just any standard the board carries.

3

With proof, first

Proof is anchored before the packet settles, not backfilled after. A hash proves a record existed; it does not by itself prove the work happened, so this clause is one part of the rule, never the whole guarantee.

Petition a new appellation

Anyone may petition, the way anyone may petition the TTB for a new American Viticultural Area. There is no fee and no form, because the process itself is the specification: write the five things below and send them. A well-written petition is most of the registry entry already.

  1. Name evidence. Proof the place is actually known by the name you propose, the way a neighborhood, a watershed, or a fire scar already carries a name on maps and in local speech, not a name invented for this page.
  2. Boundary rationale. A boundary on an ordinary public map (OpenStreetMap, county GIS, USGS) and the reasoning behind where it sits: what real cluster of place and work does it actually contain.
  3. Distinguishing ecological features. What sets this place apart from the ground next to it: a fire scar, a canopy deficit, a degraded watershed, a specific hazard or need that gives the place its own character.
  4. Method and standard ladder. Which of the work library's standards the work here is actually served under (its method_refs), and which larger ladder it climbs toward (LBC, Michelin, or an SDG).
  5. Nested-appellation distinctness. If the proposed boundary sits inside or overlaps an existing appellation, explain how the two are both consistent and genuinely distinct.

Send those five things to [email protected]. There is no submission form and no automatic approval; a person reads every petition. Petitions are reviewed and, if accepted, added to data/vealth/ewa-registry.json with status petitioned, and later moved to registered once its spec is anchored and its first packets have actually settled under it.

The machine shape, for an agent drafting a petition

An agent may draft the registry entry directly and attach it to the email; a human still reviews and adds it. The schema:

{
  "id": "lowercase-slug",
  "name": "Human-readable name",
  "boundary": { "kind": "circle", "lat": 0, "lng": 0, "radiusKm": 0 },
  "work_classes": ["work_type_value", "..."],
  "method_refs": ["standard_value", "..."],
  "standard_ladder": ["SDG 15, Life on Land", "..."],
  "proof_rule": "plain description of the proof required",
  "label_rule": "the same three-clause rule this page describes",
  "status": "petitioned",
  "petitioned_at": "YYYY-MM-DD",
  "spec_sha256": null
}

method_refs may never be empty. A boundary with no bound method is geography only, the weak pattern this whole registry exists to avoid.

Honest by design

Vealth · provable ecological work. Home Find Work Receipts Protocol boxes About