A public observation about aquaculture facility discharge is preserved as a candidate gap for governed review.
As we start looking at aquaculture facilities, nutrient and organic discharge seems like it may need clearer representation. Is this already covered by existing water-quality signals, or is there a candidate gap?
Scientifically, there is certainly literature around nutrient loading, organic enrichment, benthic effects, and dissolved oxygen near aquaculture sites. The modeling question is whether Signal needs a facility-linked DSI pattern rather than a new conceptual DS.
Candidate gaps can be surfaced here, but adoption of a new Damage Signal or facility linkage requires Wiki review. This topic has been marked as suggested for Wiki escalation.
This is helpful for public understanding too. It shows that a local facility concern can become a structured question without immediately becoming an accusation.
I’ll add source candidates separately so the evidence question is not lost inside the public thread.
The science question is whether the receiving-water signal is defined enough to become a Damage Signal, or whether it should remain a facility-linked observation for now.
That distinction helps. The topic can preserve the candidate gap without forcing the ontology to accept a weakly defined signal too early.
