Werk 16 — who carries it
Carbon is the third bill a running system sends, and the one most often estimated by someone who never sees the architecture. This werk keeps it on the same board as cost and latency, and is honest that the proof here is a method rather than a published result.
The offer
An estate whose energy and carbon footprint is measured rather than asserted, with the efficiency backlog ranked against cost and service level instead of reported once a year to a sustainability team.
Workload energy and carbon estimated from provider telemetry and public emission factors, with the method and its uncertainty written down rather than hidden behind a single number.
Hot spots ranked, with the moves that cut emissions and cost together separated from the ones that trade one against the other.
Placement and scheduling decisions read against grid intensity, plus the retention, storage-tier and zombie-workload clean-up that removes footprint no one is using.
Figures assembled in a form a CSRD or client questionnaire can consume, with the boundary and the assumptions stated.
Footprint baseline, method note, ranked efficiency backlog.
Measurement standard, trade-off arbitration against cost and SLO.
The practice stood up and the baseline moving, with the method sourced.
State of the proof
Experiences that prove it
No case is published for this werk yet. The lines below are held by a named operator or declared in scope — read the state on each line rather than assuming proof, and see the published delivery record for what is already proven elsewhere.
Sub-capabilities and evidence
Questions
- Is this proven?
- No, and it is marked that way. GreenOps is declared: it is in scope, the method is standard provider telemetry and public emission factors, and no published case carries a sourced emissions figure. A buyer who needs an audited carbon baseline should bring a specialist and use this collective on the architecture and the trade-offs.
- Then why keep the werk?
- Because the decisions that set a footprint — instance families, placement, retention, headroom — are taken inside the cost and reliability work this collective already runs. Naming it keeps the third bill on the same board instead of leaving it to a report nobody can act on.
- What actually moves the number?
- The same moves that move the invoice, mostly: rightsizing, removing zombie workloads, tiering cold storage, and not buying headroom nobody uses. Where they diverge — region choice, scheduling against grid intensity — the trade-off is stated rather than assumed.
- Who should not hire this werk?
- Anyone who needs an assured, auditable carbon statement today. That is a specialist's signature, not this collective's.