# EM-COM-03 provider comparison

Claude and Grok agree on reuse of WM-ECO-020 for Order and OrderLine, WM-ECO-022 for Subscription versions, WM-ECO-021 for pinned offer versions, WM-ECO-008 for invoice-side monetary consequences and WM-ECO-009 for payment allocation. They agree that fulfilment, invoice, payment, entitlement and usage are separate directed facts; paid never means delivered, entitled or used. Renewal is a typed predecessor-to-successor subscription-version link, not an entity or model. Mid-cycle price changes create immutable successor versions and proration remains invoice-owned.

The reconciled shape adopts Grok's stricter identity challenge. Consumption Entitlement remains an identifier-unassigned parked hypothesis rather than an assumed peer master. A grant reconstructed completely from subscription version, offer item, beneficiary, period and grant source receives no independent key. Promotion requires evidence of an independently surviving grant, such as separate beneficiaries or clocks, a grant without subscription, balance surviving cancellation, transfer/split/pool lineage, or an external licence authority. Evidence does not itself allocate an identifier.

The Enterprise profile is correspondence-only. It mints no identity, version head, quantity, balance, lifecycle state or proration fact. WM-FLW-015 owns actual usage events; usage never creates a grant. WM-ECO-024 remains an unverified fulfilment boundary. All bindings are append-only and source-pinned. The candidate and profile are explicitly non-publishable while base relation ledgers, crosswalks and executable fixtures remain unresolved.
## Provider instruction compliance

Grok used live Vercy retrieval despite the prompt’s explicit no-browse instruction. Its exact answer and citations are preserved, but every retrieval-dependent statement is treated only as an unverified provider assertion. The reconciled boundary relies on the frozen dossier and the one no-tools Claude audit, not on Grok’s live catalogue claims.