# EM-LEG-03 provider comparison

Claude and Grok independently select **PROFILE** over WM-KNW-012 with no profile or runtime identifier. Both identify WM-ORG-019 as a lower-precision duplicate whose retirement is conditional on a field-level crosswalk and rehoming of control-mapping and communication residue.

Both preserve Policy Version as an immutable dated expression, Policy Adoption as a local statement citing authority, decision and mandate, and Policy Exception as a bounded derogation. Local tailoring is tighten-only unless an explicitly derogable superior slot and valid exception permit otherwise. Unknown applicability or unresolved conflict yields an explicit unresolved result.

Both separate acknowledgement from policy identity and from compliance or control effectiveness. Claude supports an independently allocated communication-event candidate. Grok agrees on independent event grain but requires a reuse test against WM-ACT-027 before allocation. The reconciled result therefore keeps **Policy Communication Event** identifier-unassigned and adds the reuse test as a publication hold; WM-XCT-027 is never treated as the control register.

Grok adds floating-versus-pinned adoption semantics, mandatory revalidation of local tightening after a group-policy change, exception reauthorization rules, alias preservation for retired WM-ORG-019, and explicit separation of control execution from communication evidence.

Claude scopes a future communication allocation outside EM-LEG-03, while the dossier candidate-types list permits retaining an unassigned candidate inside the contour. The reconciled name Policy Communication Event broadens the source label Acknowledgement to include delivery occurrence and keeps acknowledgement as a separate act. This is an explicit rescope, not an allocation.