# EM-COM-04 provider comparison

Claude and Grok independently select **PROFILE** over WM-ACT-021 and reject a new case aggregate.

They agree that WM-ACT-021 already owns identity, intake, triage, state and assignment history, chronology indexes, merge/history preservation, outcome, closure and reopening. Both keep incident/problem identity, remedy work and communication payloads in their sibling masters. Both preserve resolution, customer acceptance and closure as separate assertions.

They also agree that intentional anonymity is materially different from an unknown requester. Claude proposed identified, pseudonymous, withheld-by-requester and anonymous-by-policy modes. Grok adds the missing epistemic state explicitly and cautions against treating the labels as a universal catalogue vocabulary. The binding therefore defines portable semantic states and guards while allowing local codes to map to them.

The relation conclusion is the same: many cases may reference one incident/problem; work orders remain external; communication interactions remain indexed/referenced; the WM-KNW-014 CHILD direction is not accepted. The profile records those relations as provisional because the shared ledger has not approved them.

The minimum artifact is declarative. No runtime/model ID and no executable code are justified. Canonical status is withheld because the parent remains `publishableCanonical=false`, sibling relations are unresolved and standards/product mappings are unverified.