# EM-DAT-01 provider comparison

Claude and Grok independently select **PROFILE** over WM-DAT-001 and WM-DAT-004 and reject a new DatasetSchemaContract aggregate or runtime identifier. Both keep dataset/version/distribution identity, contract-version identity, catalogue records, data products, quality and lineage with their existing authorities.

Grok confirms the portable profile constraints and separates notice duration, PID choice, freshness, licence catalogue and enforcement as deployment policy. The frozen Claude audit confirms the disposition but found narrow contradictions in candidate.2: mutable released bytes or contract pins, an under-scoped breaking signal, missing baseline semantics for NONE/transitive modes, vague equivalent fixity, and prose-only quality/product boundaries.

Candidate `0.1.0-candidate.3` repairs those defects with immutable distribution bytes, append-only timestamped conformance assertions, explicit baseline sets and NONE exceptions, a composite scoped compatibility outcome, exact digest evidence, and explicit EM-DAT-04/ODCS data-product boundaries. Canonical publication remains held on the two base releases and inherited evidence/validation gaps.