Blocked

If this says Kona or Hawaiian, how much of it actually is?

ALS-COFFEE-1.2-KONA-001

This question matters to a buyer and CANNOT be answered from a public product page today. What would be required is stated in full.

Why this cannot be run

Blocked by G-01, G-10.

Assertion

protected_origin_percentage is_stated true

Applicability

applies when
the page uses a Hawaii geographic coffee name in the product name, brand or description
signal
a Hawaii geographic coffee name in merchant-controlled text

Accepted evidence

  • product_description — the percentage of the named Hawaii origin, stated as a front-of-pack-equivalent disclosure rather than buried in body copy
  • product_title — the percentage adjacent to the geographic name in the product name

Explicitly insufficient evidence

What does not count, and why. Published because the omission is where a check quietly becomes a claim.

  • "Kona Blend" with no percentage
    Historically the exact practice the legislation targets, and the shape a buyer is least equipped to read.
  • "Kona-style", "Kona roast", "in the Kona tradition", "Hawaiian roast"
    Geographic-name evocation without an origin claim, which is the concern behind the more recent amendment.
  • a percentage stated deep in body copy rather than as a prominent disclosure
    The number is present and the disclosure test still fails, because the requirement is about prominence as well as presence.
  • the roaster's Hawaii address inferred as Hawaii-grown coffee
    A business location says nothing about where the green coffee was grown, and this is the same roasting-versus-growing conflation as the general origin trap.
  • "100% Kona" with nothing behind it
    The strongest-sounding string is also the least verifiable, since no public register resolves a bag's Hawaii content.

Conflict rules

  • When the geographic name appears in the brand name rather than the description — then read merchant-controlled naming as within scope for the disclosure question, because a check confined to the description misses it entirely
  • When the applicable threshold changes on a date — then version the assertion; a disclosure that satisfied an earlier threshold does not satisfy a later one and the standard must state which it applied

Discrimination

Authored expectation: no prediction, confidence low. The numeric band this standard used to carry is not published at this grammar version.

Applies only to pages using a Hawaii coffee name, and within that population percentage disclosure is inconsistent. The band is wide because the population is small and self-selecting, and because litigation pressure may have moved practice in ways this document cannot measure.

The numeric fail-rate band this reasoning was authored with is NOT carried at grammar 1.2 and is not reproduced here. Authored bands held 1 of 10 against this category's own sample and every miss was HIGH, so a direction derived from the band would inherit the error that condemned it (SCHEMA.md §9.3 step 3). The band survives in ALS-COFFEE v1.1 (standard_hash f8ec2780f60c38931913e5b6cd37506500c8462709209de7180ba6691d6137e7), which is byte-frozen and still served.

For a shopper

A blend using a Hawaii coffee name may contain only a small fraction of it, and the required percentage is the only thing that tells you which. There is no public register you can check, so the page's own disclosure is all a buyer has.

For a merchant

State the percentage of the named Hawaii origin prominently next to the geographic name wherever it appears, including in the product or brand name, and keep it current against the applicable threshold.

Grounding