Great work on this family … the independence-first split is the right call, and the publication vs. valuation staleness distinction in ERC-8330 is a refinement we’re adopting in our own oracle design.
On your open question 6 (does the layer model miss any important layer): we believe it does, and it’s the layer we’ve just proposed … contract-level credit semantics on top of the asset layer. Your six ERCs standardize what an asset is (binding, documents, corridors, compliance history, NAV), but not the financial contracts written over those assets: schedules, installments, arrears, default, purchase options. Financial leasing is our concrete case, but the gap generalizes to any scheduled receivable.
We’ve proposed a jurisdiction-neutral Financial Lease Standard designed to compose with this family: assetReference can be an ERC-8325 anchorId, agreementHash can commit to an ERC-8326 bundle, lease default events map naturally to ERC-8328 entries, and securitized lease portfolios are a natural subject for ERC-8330 NAV reporting.
Feedback very welcome … particularly on whether subject identifiers across the two layers should be alignable by convention.