# EM-FIN-01 provider comparison

Claude and Grok agree on the composition: reuse WM-ECO-012 as the Budget aggregate; add a thin Budget Responsibility profile; retain Responsibility Centre as an identifier-unassigned **NEW MODEL**; and keep Funding Allocation inside the Budget revision rather than creating another aggregate.

Both providers distinguish finance-governed centre identity from organizational units, positions, legal entities, ERP aliases, budget lines and journal dimensions. The reconciled candidate makes centre versions bitemporal enough to preserve accounting-effective pins, treats alias-only code changes as dated alias records, requires an exact accountable-position reference, and preserves merge/split lineage without rewriting historical postings.

Grok strengthens source conservation: every allocation names a source base and remainder rule; unknown never means zero; a successor budget revision does not replenish a source without an amended authorization; cross-budget draws are recorded once at the source authority; commitments and actuals never create availability; and quantization residuals follow pinned WM-XCT-032 rules.

Both providers reject a numeric identifier before registry allocation. WM-ECO-012 relations, ledger/chart-segment bindings, jurisdiction-specific authority rules, standards crosswalks, the frozen audit, package conversion and live verification remain holds.