**Verdict.** Accept the proposal. Keep WM-POL-004 unchanged. Do not assign the permission-bearing grant to reserved WM-POL-014. Create an identifier-unassigned independent Regulatory Authorization / Granted Permission candidate. Permit and Licence are peer jurisdiction-qualified classes of that one grant kind. PermitCondition and LicenceScope are dependent components of a grant instance. Use WM-XCT-017 only as evidence. Keep regulatory permission, commercial entitlement (WM-ECO-022), and IP licence as separate right families. Never enlarge permission by inference.

**WM-POL-014.** WM-POL-014 cannot own the grant; a separate identifier-unassigned candidate is required. WM-POL-014 is reserved, has no specification, and carries legacy ownership/stewardship semantics. Stewardship answers who holds or cares for an asset. A grant answers who may do which enumerated act, where, under which limits. Collapsing them produces false positives (steward assumed permitted) and false negatives (permit-holder assumed owner). No specification exists against which grant invariants could be tested. Do not invent a replacement identifier in this review.

**Strongest evidence.** WM-POL-004 explicitly owns the application-to-decision case and excludes the permission-bearing grant. A grant that can be varied, suspended, revoked, surrendered, expired, annulled, or reinstated after case closure cannot live inside the case. A WM-XCT-017 credential can be lost, forged, reissued, or left displaying “licensed” while the grant is suspended; it therefore cannot be the master. WM-ECO-022 is contractual consideration, not public-authority permission. WM-POL-014 stewardship is the wrong kind of mastership.

**Strongest counterexample.** A one-site licence for activity A1 at site S1, temporarily suspended, plus a proposed activity A2 that shares registration code R with A1. Code match, affiliate status, successor status, credential display, and a paid commercial entitlement all fail to create permission. A2 remains outside scope; exercise of A1 at S1 remains unlawful during suspension.

**Identity / mastership.** The master is the grant, not the case, credential, commercial record, or stewardship object. Identity is authority-qualified: issuing authority + jurisdiction + instrument class (Permit or Licence) + authority-local instrument identifier. Holder is the party named on the instrument. Legal basis is the enabling power cited on the grant. Permit and Licence are peer jurisdiction-qualified classes of one grant kind, not independent roots and not a merged class that erases jurisdictional distinction. Dependent components have no identity outside their grant instance. A credential may copy grant identity; destroying or replacing the credential does not revoke the grant, and absence of a credential does not prove absence of a grant.

**Case versus grant.** WM-POL-004 remains the time-bounded proceeding: submission, assessment, decision, closure. The grant is the enduring legal fact created or later affected by one or more cases—or, where law allows, by operation of law without a case. One case may produce zero grants (refusal), one grant, or a variation of an existing grant. One grant may be touched by many later cases. Decision outcome writes an append-only lifecycle event onto the grant; it does not become the grant and does not overwrite grant identity. After case closure the grant is not an open case. An open case without an issued instrument is not a grant. Operative holder, scope, conditions, and validity live only on the grant.

**Regulatory versus commercial / IP rights.** Three families stay separate. Regulatory permission is authority-issued authorization to perform enumerated activities at enumerated sites, assets, or territories under limits and conditions; it does not transfer by private contract alone. Commercial entitlement (WM-ECO-022) is contractual access in exchange for consideration; a paid product code is not a permit. An IP licence is a private grant over protected subject-matter; it does not authorize regulated activity at a site. Shared words (“licence,” “permit,” “authorized user”) are not shared semantics. A contract cannot enlarge regulatory scope. A regulatory grant does not confer IP or subscription rights. A WM-XCT-017 artifact may evidence any family; artifact type does not determine the family.

**Activity / scope.** Operative permission is only what the instrument enumerates: activity, product, site, asset, territory, limits, exclusions. Verbatim instrument text is authoritative and must be preserved even when no activity classifier exists. Structured decomposition is subordinate and must not add, drop, or generalise a term the verbatim text does not support. Classifier and registration mappings are non-normative indexing aids. A matching code is not inclusion. Silence is exclusion: unlisted site, activity, product, asset, or territory is outside. LicenceScope and any Permit equivalent cannot be reused by reference to enlarge another grant.

**Conditions.** PermitCondition and like objects are dependent components of one grant instance. A condition constrains exercise of an already-granted permission; it does not create permission, add parties, add sites, or add activities. “Must monitor X” does not authorize activity Y. Breach is a compliance fact against the grant; it does not rewrite identity or scope. Conditions remain historically attached through suspension and after ending events. Variation of a condition is a recorded event citing legal basis.

**Lifecycle.** Append-only, identity-stable. Required events: issue/grant, variation, suspension, revocation, surrender, expiry, annulment, reinstatement. Each event records time, acting authority, legal basis, and resulting operative state. Prior states remain readable. Suspension is temporary incapacity of an extant grant, not deletion. Revocation, surrender, expiry, and annulment end authority to act and must not collapse into one “inactive” flag. Reinstatement is a recorded event, not inferred lapse. Do not implement variation or suspension as delete-and-recreate.

**Party extension.** Never infer permission for affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, successors, assigns, new sites, new activities, new assets, or new territories. Merger, trade-name change, operator substitution, or matching registration code does not move the grant. Only a recorded authority act—variation or a new grant—can change holder or extend scope.

**Scenario.** Licence G has authority-qualified identity, holder H, legal basis L, validity [t0, t1], site S1 only, activities A1, and retained verbatim text. Credential C evidences G. Entitlement E exists for a related product. Code R maps non-normatively to A1 and distinct A2. While in force, H may exercise A1 at S1 only. A1 at S2 is outside; E does not authorize A1; C is evidence only. During temporary suspension, the authority appends a suspension event; G identity remains, but exercise of A1 at S1 is unlawful. C still showing “licensed” and paid E do not lift suspension. Reinstatement is a later append-only event and does not widen scope. A2 remains outside because it is absent from enumeration and verbatim text, despite code R. Affiliates, successors and S2 gain no permission by inference. A later WM-POL-004 case may seek variation or a new grant.

**Invariants.**
I1 Grant master is not WM-POL-004 case.
I2 Grant master is not WM-XCT-017 credential.
I3 Grant master is not WM-ECO-022 entitlement.
I4 Grant master is not WM-POL-014 ownership/stewardship; WM-POL-014 must not own the grant.
I5 Identity is authority-qualified; no invented enterprise identifier is source of truth.
I6 Holder is explicit; no inferred party extension.
I7 Operative scope equals verbatim text plus explicit enumerations; decomposition must not add, drop, or generalise.
I8 Classifier/registration mappings are non-normative; code match is not permission.
I9 Silence is exclusion.
I10 Conditions and scope objects are dependent; they do not themselves grant.
I11 Lifecycle is append-only; grounds must not collapse to one inactive flag.
I12 Suspension disables exercise without destroying identity; reinstatement does not widen scope.
I13 Validity bounds exercise independently of credential or commercial status.
I14 Regulatory, commercial, and IP rights remain distinct families.
I15 A WM-POL-004 decision writes a lifecycle event onto the grant; it does not become the grant.

**Minimum completion shape.** Unassigned Grant kind with identity tuple, holder, legal basis, validity interval, operative state. Jurisdiction-qualified classes Permit and Licence. Dependent scope with mandatory-capable verbatim text and structured slots for activity, product, site, asset, territory, limits and exclusions under closed-world reading. Dependent conditions list. Append-only lifecycle log with event type, time, acting authority, legal basis and resulting state. Optional non-normative classifier map flagged non-authoritative. Outbound links to affecting WM-POL-004 cases and evidencing WM-XCT-017 credentials. Explicit non-merge with WM-ECO-022, IP licence and WM-POL-014. Party-extension prohibition as a binding rule.

**Blockers.** B1 WM-POL-014 is reserved and unspecified; assigning the grant to it would invent a specification. B2 No identifier may be minted in this review for the new candidate. B3 Homonym “licence” across regulatory, commercial and IP families. B4 Classifier-as-scope temptation. B5 Missing activity classifiers must not block capture of verbatim scope. B6 Implementing suspension or variation as delete-and-recreate would break identity and lifecycle. B7 The write-rule from a WM-POL-004 decision event onto the grant is not yet specified; dual reference preserves both identities. B8 Annulment, revocation, surrender and expiry are distinct grounds; collapsing them loses legal effect.