# Provider comparison — EM-LEG-04

Claude and Grok agree that the permission-bearing grant has independent identity and lifecycle outside WM-POL-004, WM-XCT-017, WM-ECO-022, IP rights and WM-POL-014 stewardship. Both retain Regulatory Authorization / Granted Permission as identifier-unassigned and prohibit guessing a registry ID. Permit and Licence are jurisdiction-qualified classes of one grant kind; scope and conditions are dependent components.

Grok strengthens the boundary by requiring the authority-qualified identity tuple, an explicit case-to-grant write rule, a closed-world reading of enumerated scope, retained authoritative verbatim text, non-authoritative classifier mappings, distinct lifecycle grounds and strict separation of credential availability from grant state. It also makes the WM-POL-014 rejection explicit: the reserved stewardship boundary cannot own the grant without inventing a missing specification.

The reconciled result remains a NEW MODEL candidate with no assigned identifier. Promotion requires registry allocation after the candidate, write rule, lifecycle and scope fixtures are accepted.