[Change] § 3, § 5.6.1, Appendix B — A resolved commitment is an offer until the seller accepts #67

What kind of change?

Change a normative requirement (MUST / SHOULD / MAY)

Which section?

Whole document / more than one section

Current text

§ 3; § 5.6.1; Appendix B:

§ 3, `selectable` and `settable` rows: … Resolves without seller assent.
Appendix B, the same rows: … Resolves without assent.

§ 5.6.1: Absent on a published standard proposal. Populated during composition. Frozen
when status becomes `agreed`.

Appendix B: Only the 3 `requestable` fields require a round trip.

Proposed text

§ 3 and Appendix B, `selectable` and `settable` rows: "Resolves without seller assent."
(Appendix B: "without assent") becomes "Resolves without a round trip."

§ 3, after "Resolution without a round trip":

Resolution is validation and pricing, not acceptance. A resolved `commitment` is an offer to
buy (§ 5.6.1).

§ 5.6.1, from "Populated during composition":

Populated during composition. A `commitment` resolves under § 3 when it fits
`commitment_bounds.spend` and the committed entry's `unit_bounds`. A resolved `commitment`
is an offer to buy. It binds only when the seller accepts it; `assent[]` (§ 4.1) records
that acceptance for the binding `version`. A seller MAY decline a resolved `commitment`
with a `decline` entry; the buyer MAY recompose. A decline for lack of availability MUST
state the `availability` of each line item it covers, recomputed against the buyer's
composition; the seller's determination is authoritative. While a buyer's hold (§ 5.6.2)
runs, the seller MUST NOT decline that buyer's `commitment` for lack of availability.
This does not cover inventory that a hold granted ahead of it (`hold.position`, § 5.6.2)
reserves or took on converting. A firm entry limits a decline to the grounds in § 4.3.2.
Acceptance ends the availability check; booking is downstream (§ 1.1). Frozen when the line
item's `status` becomes `agreed`.

Appendix B, after "require a round trip": add "to resolve (§ 5.6.1)".

Why

The draft never says whether a filled-in commitment buys anything. We ask: not until the seller accepts.

commitment is settable: "Resolves without seller assent" (§ 3). Yet the binding version carries both parties' assent (§ 4.1). A buyer built to § 3 reports a buy; a seller built to § 4.1 may decline.

As drafted (§ 5.6.1):

stateDiagram-v2
    absent --> populated: composition
    populated --> resolved: within bounds, no seller assent
    resolved --> agreed: ? undefined. § 3 needs no assent, § 4.1 needs assent
    agreed --> [*]: frozen

Proposed:

stateDiagram-v2
    absent --> populated: composition
    populated --> resolved: resolves under § 3, an offer to buy
    resolved --> agreed: seller accepts, assent recorded
    resolved --> declined: seller MAY decline
    declined --> populated: buyer recomposes
    agreed --> [*]: frozen

Acceptance is separate because remaining quantity is not a declared bound: availability is seller-recomputed (§ 3.3; #35), shared across buyers, and not an offered term (#64).

A hold and a firm rate limit a decline in opposite ways. While a hold runs, availability is no ground, except for inventory held ahead of it. Until price_valid_until, only lack of availability, an exclusivity conflict, and terms stated at first offer remain. @EvgenyAndroid proposed the availability limit in our lifecycle change request (#65); the lifecycle PR adds the other two grounds.

With #24, #23, and the parties PR, staleness, requires, and eligibility join the check. A failed check is a rejection, not a decline. Companions: lifecycle, holds, assent.

Knock-on effects

• § 3 and § 7 "require the counterparty to respond" stand, read as resolution, not acceptance. commitment's buyer keys stay settable; no marker or Appendix B count changes.
• § 5.9 deal_id_issuance ("Issued at commitment time") gives way to deal_origin in the handoff PR, and a deal starts from the agreed line item.
• § 5.6.2: the holds PR lets the seller state what a hold reserves, in hold.held_availability.
• Names follow the coming PRs: commitment_bounds.spend and unit_bounds (pricing), hold.position (holds), and the decline entry (signing). The lifecycle PR carries this text.
• Buyers reading settable literally change behavior.

Would this break an implementation already built to this draft?

Not sure

Alternatives you considered and rejected

requestable, a quantity bound, a mandatory hold (rationale).

You are commenting as

Other — IAB Tech Lab member (Postindustria).

Before you submit

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md and agree my contribution may be published under this repository's licence.
• This contains no confidential or commercially sensitive information.

Details: Commitment acceptance: full rationale and examples

Revised 2026-11-03: Names follow the coming PRs, and firm-rate grounds point to the lifecycle PR. An availability decline states figures in CommitResult.availability, beside its decline entry. § 3 and Appendix B drop "without seller assent". The holds PR answers the hold quantity question in part.

Analyzed and generated with the help of Claude, fully reviewed by me.