# EM-LND-05 provider comparison

Claude and Grok independently select **PROFILE** over WM-ACT-005 and WM-ACT-029 with no catalogue or runtime identifier. DeliveryLandscape is a read-only projection specification, DeliveryScope remains source-owned, and tracker containers require authoritative bindings.

Both require component identities to remain external, one source cost fact on WM-ACT-005, cross-path deduplication before allocation, M:N project links, separate product and team axes, non-additive contribution claims and strict separation of scenarios from actuals. Grok adds explicit membership roles, financial-parent uniqueness and view classes. The frozen audit preserves those decisions but requires source selection before deduplication, one view-class field, exact arithmetic, complete source pins, closed outcomes and explicit endpoint mastership.

CandidateRevision 3 integrates the provider agreement and the one-pass audit remediation. Product and canonical Benefit masters remain unallocated and their projections are withheld. Team resolves to `vr.wm-org-003`; aggregate capacity assertions remain `vr.wm-act-029`-scoped with an external owner. These are research constraints, not approved relation rows or conformance claims.