Proposal / Working draft 0.1 / 1 November 2026
Reading the 2019 proposal
What the workshop paper supports, what it leaves open, and how the working draft responds.
Copyright © 2026 Stephen Makonin. Draft documentation.
What the workshop paper establishes
Source: Laura Guzman, Stephen Makonin and Alex Clapp (2019), "CarbonKit: Designing A Personal Carbon Tracking Platform," Fourth International Workshop on Social Sensing, Montreal, 6 pages. DOI: 10.1145/3313294.3313385. All six supplied PDF pages were read and visually reviewed.
| Paper location | Evidence and implication |
|---|---|
| pp. 1-3; Sections 1-3 | Proposes a platform connecting computing applications, information sources and incentives. A shared structure should let different participants integrate services; the site should not reduce CarbonKit to one calculator. |
| p. 3; Section 3.1 and Figure 3 | Motivate, track, inform, adjust and reward form a proposed feedback loop. Goals can vary and change. The loop is a design rationale, not a demonstrated outcome. |
| pp. 3-4; Section 4.1 | Five modules: personal carbon tracking, health and fitness, money-saving tools, social media and incentives. A common API and configurable personal dashboard connect them. |
| p. 4; Section 4.2 | Encrypt communications and individually protect stored information. Keep provider-collected data with the provider; store minimal central information; preserve user control and need-to-know access. |
| pp. 4-5; Section 5 | Begin with voluntary tracking for personal information. Allowances, trading and eco-currency are later hypothetical directions, not existing programme authority. |
| pp. 5-6; Section 6 | British Columbia is a design case identifying possible stakeholder roles. Historical institutions, programmes and brands do not establish current partnerships. |
Limits and the resulting draft decisions
The paper is conceptual: it reports no deployed CarbonKit service, interoperable implementation, accuracy evaluation, user trial or demonstrated emissions, behaviour, health or financial benefits. Figure 4 is a dashboard mockup with illustrative values. The smartphone statistics and stakeholder examples are historical.
The paper does not provide data schemas, a calculation methodology, an emissions-factor registry, uncertainty rules, lifecycle procedures or conformance tests. Version 0.1 proposes those missing pieces, and labels them as new design work. Current laws, institutional responsibilities and programme availability were not inferred from the paper.
- Preserved: open integration, common API ambition, user goals, voluntary participation, provider-held raw data, minimal coordination, encrypted communication and user control.
- Sequenced: core carbon tracking first, with the other four modules as optional later capabilities. This is a proposed rollout choice rather than a claim that the paper required optional modules.
- Added for review: record and factor versioning, unit/boundary checks, explicit unknowns, correction/supersession, overlap handling, consent lifecycle, export/deletion and test evidence.
- Excluded from v0.1: offset verification, tradable credits, mandatory participation and health/behaviour benefit claims. Reward points must remain distinguishable from emissions quantities.
- Requires an explicit decision: any detailed user vault beyond provider storage. It must be separately consented and must not become a default central raw-data warehouse.
The supplied ACM paper is retained privately in the project papers folder. This site links the DOI and attributes all coauthors rather than republishing the PDF or its third-party photograph. The project repository's software license does not override the paper's publication notice.