# Provider comparison — EM-COM-02

Claude and Grok agree that EM-COM-02 is a profile over WM-ECO-026, WM-ECO-021 and WM-ECO-027. Both preserve external mastership for Party, campaign, pursuit, proposal, order, contract and revenue; separate lead from Party/customer/consent; keep opportunity forecast method-qualified and non-revenue; distinguish quote, offer, order and contract; and require attribution method/version/window with credit separated from causality.

Grok rejects the initial `NEW MODEL` disposition for Attribution Claim. The reconciled direction demotes it to an identifier-unassigned profile-local record: stable local identity and supersession are allowed, but catalogue world-model authority is not. PursuitLink, PartyLinkAssertion, ProposalBinding and OutcomeBinding follow the same rule. WM-ECO-026 source provenance remains distinct from attribution credit.

The scenario is tightened to one WM-ECO-026 pursuit, two WM-ECO-027 campaigns, two disjoint-scope WM-ECO-021 proposals and exactly one externally mastered accepted outcome. Multiple method-labelled credit claims may reference that outcome, while duplicate outcome recognition, email-based Party merge, cross-method aggregation and forecast-as-revenue are rejected.

Publication remains held because the parent cards and relation ledger are not canonical, disjoint proposal scope lacks a published invariant, and organization-neutral forecast/attribution methodology is unresolved. No model or runtime identifier is created.

Audit reconciliation fixes the provider-level difference in OutcomeBinding uniqueness as (observerDimensionRef, pursuitRef, scopeKey, outcomeKind) and chooses pursuit P as the canonical attribution subject. Outcome-level claims remain a separate non-summable population.