[KonstantinMirin]

What this changes

Draft 1 doesn't say what two pricing[] entries mean or which currency applies. Its cancellation and exclusivity options have no keys.

• pricing[] entries are alternatives, named by pricing_id, and the buyer commits under one (§ 5.6). An entry can name the mechanisms it prices.
• § 5.6.5 states the sign of agreed_rate, and a list_rate counter can change included[] (§ 4.3.1), from @aleksUIX. separation adds location, and a demographic term states co-viewers and unknown age.
• § 5.6.5 opens cost_method and lists ten core terms with the unit each counts. FLAT has none. It defines derived_units, the seller total, and FLAT and TIME figures.
• A rate reads in its entry's CurrencyCode, and other amounts in the committed entry's, so commitment.currency and min_commitments[].currency go.
• Every line-item Amount shares one basis, which § 8 question 9 leaves open.
• commitment_bounds.spend replaces min_spend and the budget keys, and pricing[].unit_bounds the impression keys, in the entry's unit.
• § 5.6.6 defines the cancellation option and its CancellationNotice, and § 5.6.7 the exclusivity option.

Related issue

Closes #94. Closes #98. Both are Postindustria (IAB Tech Lab member) change requests.

Refs #115, #30, #127, #125, #121, #117, and #70.

Builds on

This PR builds on our holds PR and our handoff PR, and through them on our post-agreement PR, our signing PR, our buyer writes PR, our lifecycle PR, our parties PR, our errors and extensions PR, and our shared types PR. It carries #18, #70, #71, and #72 by @Sirajmx, #73, #74, #75, and #76 by @Kishore-2572, and #118 by @aleksUIX. Review the last two non-merge commits, the #117 merge by @aleksUIX, and the merge that resolves where our holds and signing PRs overlap.

Type

• Editorial — no normative effect
• Normative — changes what the spec requires
• Breaking — would break an implementation already built to this draft
• Examples / schema / docs only

Checklist

• The body section is updated — § 1.1, § 2.1, § 2.2, § 2.4, § 2.5, § 3.1 to § 3.4, § 4.1, § 4.3, § 4.3.1, § 4.3.2, § 4.3.4, § 4.4, § 5.6, § 5.6.1, § 5.6.3, new § 5.6.5 to § 5.6.7, § 6, § 8, and docs/open-questions.md OQ-9
• Appendix A (field index) matches the body — pricing_id, rate_per, unit_label, cost_definition, cost_parameters, transaction_mechanisms[], and unit_bounds added under pricing[], and min_spend removed. Rates are Amount, currency is a CurrencyCode, and availability, commitment_bounds, and exclusivity are typed. scripts/check_appendix.py passes, with Availability, CancellationOption, ExclusivityTerm, MinCommitment, and CancellationNotice off the pending list
• Appendix B (fields by marker, and the counts) matches the body — immutable 9 → 10, seller-set 40 → 44, requestable 4 → 5; 87 → 93 fields
• Any affected example in examples/ is updated and still parses — the renames throughout, and flight bounds. Display shows USD and EUR alternatives, and audio shows priced exclusivity. Display, CTV, and audio offer cancellation options, and the issued proposal records a partial cancellation. Both record_digest values are recomputed, and manifest.json is regenerated. scripts/check_examples.py recomputes the commitment arithmetic, the bounds, and the cancellation shares, and passes. scripts/check_pricing_fixtures.py passes 60 of 60
• RFC 2119 keywords used deliberately — MUST / SHOULD / MAY are not synonyms
• The no-inheritance rule (§ 2) still holds — every new key sits on the line item or its pricing[] entry
• Anything selectable declares available[] and included[]; anything settable declares bounds (§ 3.1, § 3.2) — cancellation_policy and exclusivity keep both; the commitment bounds are commitment_bounds.spend and unit_bounds
• No confidential or commercially sensitive content

Knock-on effects

• Breaking. Removed keys no longer conform. Each entry needs a pricing_id. availability renames type and as_of, drops basis, and requires window.
• What this completes. Availability types our holds PR's held_availability, and CancellationNotice our post-agreement PR's cancellation. Our handoff PR's totals read the seller total, and Line.ratetype maps CPMV and daily TIME.
• What later PRs complete. Our DOOH PR adds § 5.6.4, and our video and audio PR removes ProductionOption.cost. Our settlement PR adds the mrc term and reads shortfalls against these bounds.
• Account for seller fees after selecting one price #117. @aleksUIX's fixtures, adapter, and discussion document take the spec's names. A granted rate is the next version's list_rate, so accepted_counter and selection_key go.
• CONTRIBUTING.md and the comment template drop the PG and PMP floor scenario.
• Filings this answers.
  • @EvgenyAndroid's evidence on #94 backs the alternatives and pricing_id. derived_units rounds down, the first rule they offered.
  • loop and install_date are core terms, as @premesh asked on #98. unit_periods counts their [Comment] § 5.2 Static OOH: posting cycles, printed material, install lead time and proof of posting #125 posting cycle.
  • A spend includes delta_flat charges, answering @dineshbhat's [Change] § 5.6.1 — State what commitment.amount includes (rate basis, third-party fees, tax) #115 and @aleksUIX on #30.
• Changes from the filed text.
  • [Change] § 5.6 — Give cost_method an extensible vocabulary, and say what several pricing[] entries mean #94: pricing[].unit becomes unit_label, and cost_definition a DocumentRef. Only unit bounds move into each entry (question 1).
  • [Change] § 5.6 — Give cancellation_policy and exclusivity options a typed shape #98: notice_period, fee[], basis, rate, before_start, periods[], and flight_start become notice_duration, fees[], calculation, share, before_reference, dated_shares[], and flight. cattax becomes taxonomy, and start and end become window.

Open questions

1. Answered by @aleksUIX. A counter on a composed rate needs no separate final rate: list_rate carries it, with the negotiated options in included[], so a counter may change both. Dropping accepted_counter and selection_key stands.
2. Yes, answered by @aleksUIX. § 5.6.5 states the rule, and scripts/check_examples.py flags a spend commitment with no rate.
3. Should a CancellationNotice name the dated_shares[] entry it cancels under?
4. [Change] § 5.6 — Give cost_method an extensible vocabulary, and say what several pricing[] entries mean #94 questions 3 and 4, and [Change] § 5.6 — Give cancellation_policy and exclusivity options a typed shape #98 questions 1, 3, 5, and 6, stay open.

---

By opening this pull request I agree my contribution may be published under this
repository's licence, as set out in CONTRIBUTING.md.

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

[premesh]

Thanks for carrying loop and install_date. Two gaps for OOH dominations:

• separation needs location (no competitor on any face at the venue or site, static or digital) alongside loop.
• A domination is usually an ooh and a dooh line item together, so the term has to span line items. Per my reply on [Change] § 5.9, § 5.6, § 2.1 — Add delivery_type: guaranteed, share_of_voice, non_guaranteed #93 OQ7, that suggests the exclusivity term lives at proposal or package level, with line items referencing its id.

On notice_reference: install_date: the posting_schedule in #125 would give the record that date, so the fee becomes computable.

[KonstantinMirin]

Thanks, @premesh. location is in this PR: each venue or site of the line item's properties, static or digital. And yes, #125's posting_schedule would make the install_date fee computable.

We'd rather not span line items, though. Postindustria's view is that the line item is the unit, and each stands on its own: a term on one line item shouldn't reach another, and only the proposal binds them. requires, from #70, only says what must be bought together. A link between line items has to be followed by every revision, staleness check, and partial commit, which adds complexity the protocol doesn't otherwise need.

If that isn't enough, the place is a level up, on the proposal. linked_execution: all already commits its line items together, each with its own location term. Could you share the business case for where that falls short? What goes wrong in a real domination sold that way?

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