​

Phase II is where the farm plan meets reality.

Phase II — Production & Regeneration begins when the farm-specific Phase II trigger defined in Phase I has been accepted. This is the operating phase where the farm starts producing the records that can answer:

• What was actually planted?
• What survived?
• What was harvested?
• What was lost?
• What was sold or distributed?
• At what realized price?
• What did operations actually cost?
• Which regenerative practices were implemented?
• What changed in soil, vegetation, biodiversity, water, work, or resource use?
• Which assumptions were wrong?
• Which risks materialized?
• What should the operators change next?

Phase II is not “the plan being proven correct.” It is the period in which the plan is tested against field reality.

---

​

Phase II at a glance

---

​

The Phase II operating loop

The loop matters more than any one harvest. A mature Phase II farm should become more specific and less assumption-heavy over time.

---

​

What Phase II should produce

---

​

Phase II workstreams

​

1. Execute the locally approved production plan

Phase II puts the Phase I operating plan into sustained use. Depending on the farm, that can include:

• annual vegetables;
• root crops;
• vines;
• fruit;
• coconut or other perennial trees;
• agroforestry;
• nursery production;
• poultry or animals where appropriate;
• biological-input production;
• community/training activity;
• other locally relevant production systems.

​

Short, medium, and long cycles are planning categories — not a mandatory template

Kokonut often uses multiple time horizons because they help distinguish:

• early production;
• establishment periods;
• long-lived assets;
• replacement cycles;
• delayed cash flow.

But a future farm does not need to reproduce Adelphi’s exact mix. The correct mix depends on the farm.

---

​

2. Record planting and establishment actuals

For material crops / production systems, record what actually happened. Possible fields include:

• farm / plot / bed;
• crop / variety;
• planting date;
• planted quantity;
• planted area;
• source of seed/planting material;
• density;
• operator;
• establishment notes;
• irrigation/water context;
• inputs;
• weather/context;
• survival / establishment rate where relevant.

​

Why this matters

A forecast may assume:

• a planting density;
• a number of plants;
• an establishment date;
• a survival rate;
• a cycle length.

Phase II creates the first opportunity to replace those assumptions with actual farm-specific values.

---

​

3. Record harvest, loss, sale, and distribution actuals

Each material harvest should preserve enough information to reconcile the production model.

​

Revenue states should remain separate

Do not collapse:

• harvested;
• invoiced;
• sold;
• paid;
• cash received.

Likewise, do not collapse:

• gross revenue;
• net revenue;
• operating surplus;
• profit;
• distributable cash.

---

​

4. Reconcile forecast vs. actual

This is one of Phase II’s most important functions. Useful variance categories include:

• planting quantity;
• establishment/survival;
• days to harvest;
• yield;
• loss/rejection;
• realized price;
• buyer/channel;
• labor;
• input cost;
• water cost;
• transport;
• packaging;
• maintenance;
• public-goods transfer where applicable.

​

Variance is not failure by definition

A model is useful when reality can change it.

A forecast that is never revised after actual farm data arrives is documentation debt.

---

​

5. Implement regenerative practices — without assuming the outcome

Phase II is where the 5 Principles of Regeneration become observable farm activity. Examples can include:

• reduced avoidable soil disturbance;
• living or biomass cover;
• functional biodiversity;
• animal integration where appropriate;
• living roots / perennial continuity;
• compost;
• biochar;
• biological inputs;
• agroforestry;
• biomass cycling;
• irrigation / water management;
• erosion controls.

​

Record the intervention

For a material practice, preserve:

• where;
• when;
• what;
• quantity / rate where relevant;
• operator;
• method;
• source material;
• related crop/plot;
• photo / field observation where useful;
• intended hypothesis.

Then measure the outcome separately.

​

Example

Activity: biochar was applied to Plot A at a recorded rate.

Possible later outcome questions:

• Did soil moisture change?
• Did input dependency change?
• Did crop performance change?
• Did soil carbon change under an appropriate method?

The practice record is useful even if the expected outcome does not appear.

---

​

6. Build ecological evidence over comparable periods

Phase II should compare conditions only when the methods and context support comparison. Possible domains include:

• soil;
• vegetation;
• water;
• biodiversity;
• survival;
• land cover;
• input use;
• resource cycling.

​

Soil

Possible evidence can include:

• EC;
• volumetric water content;
• temperature;
• lab indicators where useful;
• ground cover;
• input/application records;
• soil organic matter/carbon under fit-for-purpose methods.

​

Vegetation / remote sensing

Indices such as:

• NDVI;
• NDRE;
• ReCI;
• MSAVI;

can provide derived vegetation signals. They do not directly prove:

• yield;
• biodiversity;
• soil carbon;
• ecological restoration;
• credit eligibility.

​

Biodiversity

Useful evidence can progress through:

inventory → implementation → survival/continuity → repeated survey → bounded interpretation

​

Method consistency matters

Record:

• measurement method;
• units;
• location;
• timing;
• instrument/sensor;
• calibration/context where relevant;
• reviewer;
• limitations.

---

​

7. Track operator, labor, and capability actuals

Phase II tests whether the human operating system works. Useful records can include:

• operator responsibility;
• worker role;
• dates;
• full-time / part-time / seasonal status;
• compensation where appropriate;
• safety / incidents;
• training;
• competency;
• labor hours where material;
• turnover;
• dependency on one person;
• escalation / backup roles.

​

Why this matters

Phase III should not depend on the assumption that a farm can scale if:

• one founder holds all operational knowledge;
• data entry depends on one external contributor;
• maintenance has no owner;
• harvest work cannot be staffed;
• financial reporting is incomplete.

Operational maturity includes people, not only crops.

---

​

8. Track expenses and operational finance

Production evidence should include cost evidence. Useful financial actuals include:

• inputs;
• seed / seedlings;
• feed;
• labor;
• water;
• power/fuel;
• packaging;
• transport;
• tools;
• maintenance;
• repairs;
• certification/compliance costs;
• external services.

​

Budget vs. actual

For funded work: This is especially important when shared treasury capital is involved.

---

​

9. Review milestones where the funding model requires them

Not every farm needs DAO milestones. When a funder, grant, Moloch proposal, or partner agreement uses milestone-based releases, Phase II should keep:

• authorization;
• payment/execution;
• physical delivery;
• evidence review;
• acceptance;
• closeout

as separate states.

​

Example milestone record

---

​

10. Record incidents, failed assumptions, and change control

Phase II should create a record when reality materially departs from the plan. Examples:

• crop failure;
• mortality;
• disease;
• storm/flood/drought damage;
• irrigation failure;
• failed buyer;
• major price change;
• input shortage;
• labor gap;
• equipment failure;
• unexpected cost;
• data loss;
• invalid measurement;
• operator change;
• land/access change;
• scope change.

​

A useful variance record should identify

• what changed;
• why it matters;
• immediate response;
• owner;
• budget effect;
• production effect;
• evidence effect;
• risk update;
• whether re-authorization is needed;
• next review date.

The farm should be allowed to change. The record should make the change legible.

---

​

11. Publish and attest selectively

The MRV sequence remains:

observe → structure → review → publish → attest when useful → interpret

​

Publish when appropriate

Useful published records can include:

• farm status;
• planting/harvest records;
• milestone records;
• selected MRV events;
• public reports;
• impact evidence where appropriate.

Sensitive evidence can remain restricted.

​

EAS

Use EAS when durable public provenance adds value. An EAS attestation can preserve:

• signer;
• timestamp;
• schema;
• evidence pointer;
• claim/provenance context.

It does not establish:

• scientific truth;
• causal attribution;
• certification;
• carbon-credit eligibility;
• biodiversity restoration;
• farm profitability.

​

IPFS / Filecoin

Use content-addressed storage when durable evidence artifacts benefit from it. It is not required for every Phase II record.

---

​

Phase II and the Positive Impact claim ladder

Phase II is where many claims can move from alignment to activity, and some can move to measured outcome. Examples: Phase II does not require every claim to reach the final level. A farm can be operationally successful while some ecological or social outcomes remain uncertain.

---

​

Adelphi — current Phase II reference

Current Kokonut documentation places Adelphi in Phase II — Production & Regeneration. It is the strongest current example of how Phase II should be read:

real infrastructure and farm activity exist, while many production/economic/ecological values still require current actual records before stronger conclusions are made.

​

Documented / current reference facts

Repository documentation currently includes:

• two syntropic plots;
• 110 hens;
• nursery + biofactory;
• bamboo-derived biochar practice;
• ground-cover / beard-grass practice;
• crop beds and mixed production systems;
• training/community infrastructure;
• GPS / remote-sensing / farm-record capability;
• Phase II status.

​

Current forecast model — not actual performance

The Adelphi forecast currently models:

​

The Phase II job at Adelphi

The key task is to replace assumptions such as:

• 15% crop loss;
• 5 lettuce harvests/year;
• planning prices;
• passion-fruit yield;
• coconut maturity yield;
• ~100 eggs/day;

with farm-specific actuals. That is the purpose of Phase II.

---

​

Phase II reporting cadence is farm- and claim-specific

The old page assumed a fixed six-month review and annual impact report. Those can be useful reporting intervals. They should not be universal requirements.

Choose the reporting period because it makes the claim comparable—not because the Framework requires a universal calendar.

---

​

Phase II risk register

Phase I identifies risks. Phase II shows which ones actually matter. A good Phase II risk record should update:

• likelihood / uncertainty;
• consequence;
• owner;
• mitigation;
• trigger;
• residual risk;
• next review.

---

​

What Phase II does not guarantee

Phase II reduces uncertainty by replacing assumptions with actual operating evidence. It does not remove uncertainty.

---

​

Phase II maturity and the transition to Phase III

There should not be one universal Phase II completion formula. The old page required:

• three short-cycle harvests;
• productive medium-cycle crops;
• healthy long-cycle crops;
• soil improvement;
• annual impact report;
• scored CRISP review;
• enough DAO evidence.

Those can be useful signals in some contexts. They are not universal Framework requirements. A future farm might:

• have no short-cycle crops;
• have no livestock;
• use a different market model;
• need more than one year before meaningful ecological comparison;
• be privately/grant funded rather than Moloch funded;
• use a different evidence cadence.

​

A stronger Phase II maturity review asks

​

Phase III trigger

Phase III — Consolidation & Expansion should begin when the farm has enough operating history to justify a defined consolidation step. Possible Phase III triggers include:

• standardizing successful operating procedures;
• strengthening traceability;
• pursuing certification;
• formalizing market channels;
• expanding infrastructure;
• reducing founder dependency;
• developing training systems;
• strengthening replacement/replanting plans;
• expanding evidence quality;
• testing replication.

The trigger should identify:

• what is being consolidated/expanded;
• why current evidence supports it;
• unresolved risks;
• budget/funding if needed;
• operator acceptance;
• reviewer/authority;
• acceptance criteria.

---

​

Phase II reviewer checklist

Use the applicable questions — not a universal pass/fail score.

• Is the current Phase II scope clear?
• Are local operators still the named owners of routine field execution?
• Are planting/establishment actuals recorded?
• Are harvest quantities recorded where harvests occurred?
• Are losses/rejections measured consistently?
• Are realized prices separated from planning prices?
• Are buyer/distribution records available where relevant?
• Are expenses/cost actuals being captured?
• Are forecasts being revised from actual performance?
• Are regenerative practices documented separately from outcome claims?
• Are ecological measurements comparable to the relevant baseline?
• Are derived indicators labeled as derived indicators?
• Are failed assumptions and incidents visible?
• Are risk owners and mitigations current?
• Are funded milestones distinguished from farm outcomes?
• Are change-control / re-authorization requirements visible?
• Are EAS/IPFS used only where useful rather than assumed mandatory?
• Are sensitive records kept appropriately restricted?
• Is current farm state routed to the Hub / live records?
• Is the proposed Phase III trigger evidence-based and farm-specific?

---

​

How different readers should use Phase II

---

​

Current maturity

---

​

Continue through the Framework

Phase II succeeds when the farm becomes less dependent on assumptions and more capable of learning from its own operating evidence.