# EM-LND-07 — Frozen semantic audit (final)

Evidence admitted: local synthesis, initial Claude study, exact Grok study (visible portion only — verdict, counterexample/scenario, thirteen invariants, minimum profile shape; the blockers paragraph is treated as ending at "WM-ACT-004 Service Definition" and is not reconstructed), profile candidate, existing fixtures. No tools used, no identifier invented, no registry allocation, no standards-conformance or publication-readiness claim, no re-study requested.

---

## 1. Verdict

**Accept the decision; reject the artifacts as submitted.**

The adjudicated semantics are upheld and not reopened: Offering Portfolio Scope is a versioned governance/filter profile over the future Offering Catalogue; Offering Landscape is a non-authoritative projection; neither has independent business identity; no runtime/model identifier is allocated; `decision: "PROFILE"` and `newRuntimeId: false` are correct. All three evidence sources converge on this, and nothing in the submitted artifacts contradicts the reconciled decision — so no re-study is triggered.

The submitted artifacts are nevertheless **not freezable as written**. The profile candidate encodes 8 constraints against a reconciled 13-invariant surface, carries two base identifiers with no evidenced role and one duplicated obligation base, declares no enumerations or shape, asserts one unevidenced mechanism ("reproducible fingerprint"), and misstates the provider-review hold. The fixture set is machine-unverifiable: no negative carries an expected code, and the majority of the reconciled invariants have no case at all. Defects D1–D19 below are all mechanically closable from the admitted evidence; none requires new provider input.

---

## 2. Material defects in the submitted artifacts

Artifacts in scope: `profile candidate` (PC), `existing fixtures` (FX), `local synthesis` (LS). The Claude and Grok studies are evidence and are not audited.

**D1 — PC `bases` asserts one obligation base twice under two spellings.**
`bases` contains both `"WM-ACT-029"` and `"WM-XCT-029"`. Only `WM-XCT-029` is substantively evidenced (obligation mixin anchored on `WM-ECO-006`, discharge rule cited); `WM-ACT-029` appears only inside a prose holds enumeration. Two distinct bases are therefore asserted where the evidence supports one.
*Remediation:* delete the string `"WM-ACT-029"` from `bases`; retain `"WM-XCT-029"`. Append to `holds` exactly: `"The obligation mixin is carried as WM-XCT-029; the WM-ACT-029 spelling in prior prose is treated as a transcription variant and is not asserted as a separate base."` No identifier is created or re-allocated.

**D2 — PC `bases` lists two identifiers with no evidenced role.**
`"WM-SFT-001"` and `"WM-MAT-008"` appear in no part of the admitted evidence. LS names "measurement masters" and "product/service catalogues" generically but binds neither phrase to these identifiers, so the dependency is unverifiable from the frozen dossier.
*Remediation:* delete `"WM-SFT-001"` and `"WM-MAT-008"` from `bases`. Add object `"basisRoles"` mapping every retained base to exactly one evidenced role string drawn from the dossier (`WM-ECO-021` → quote/proposal; `WM-ECO-020` → order and delivered/outstanding accounting; `WM-ECO-022` → recurring economics and renewal; `WM-ECO-006` → contract; `WM-XCT-029` → obligation mixin; `WM-ACT-004` → service definition; `WM-ORG-014` → seller-scoped customer relationship). Append to `holds`: `"WM-SFT-001 and WM-MAT-008 adjacency is unevidenced in the frozen dossier and must be re-evidenced before reinstatement as a base."`

**D3 — PC constraint 2 calls unallocated subjects "masters".**
`"Product, Service, Offering, Quote and Entitlement remain distinct masters."` Offering Catalogue, Product Catalogue and Consumption Entitlement are unallocated candidates; the text asserts existing mastership they do not have.
*Remediation:* replace constraint 2 with: `"Product, Service, Offering, Quote and Entitlement remain distinct subjects, each on its own allocated master or, where unallocated, on its owning candidate master; none is a subtype of scope or landscape."`

**D4 — PC states no authorisation prohibition.**
Constraint 1 forbids mutation ("read-only projection") but not authorisation. Reconciled INV-04 forbids the landscape from authorising a quote, order, subscription, entitlement grant or retirement — a projection can be read-only and still be wrongly used as authority.
*Remediation:* insert constraint: `"Offering Landscape cannot authorise or evidence a quote, order, subscription, entitlement grant or retirement; it may only project state its source masters already hold."`

**D5 — PC states no citation rule.**
Grok INV-05 ("Decisions cite catalogue state plus scope version, not the landscape") has no counterpart in PC. Without it, the partner-exclusivity counterexample has no admissible resolution.
*Remediation:* insert constraint: `"Portfolio decisions and external citations reference catalogue state plus a frozen scope version; the landscape is never the cited source of authority, and an obligation that depends on an admitted set cites the frozen scope version and catalogue baseline."`

**D6 — PC omits the explicit-exclusion rule.**
PC constraint 3 covers derivation of membership only. Grok's boundary section requires exclusion, override and exception to be explicit predicate outcomes, never silent gaps; absence from output is otherwise indistinguishable from exclusion.
*Remediation:* insert constraint: `"Inclusion, exclusion, override and exception are explicit recorded predicate outcomes per evaluated candidate; a silent gap is never an exclusion."`

**D7 — PC constraint 5 is weaker than the adjudicated intent on value.**
`"Zero revenue never means zero value and missing price never means free"` states the negatives but omits both the positive requirement (typed non-revenue value is *required* for internal services) and the ranking prohibition (Grok: zero external revenue "must not be scored as such in landscape rankings").
*Remediation:* replace constraint 5 with: `"Zero revenue never means zero value and missing price never means free; every in-scope internal service carries at least one typed non-revenue value term with method and uncertainty; zero external revenue is never scored as zero value in any landscape ranking or ordering; cost-to-serve may be recorded but never substitutes for the typed value."`

**D8 — PC constraint 7 omits retirement record content.**
PC states only that retirement cancels nothing. The adjudicated intent, LS and Grok INV-11 additionally require the record's own content.
*Remediation:* insert constraint: `"Every offering retirement record states dated retirement states, support window, retention window, migration path and entitlement conversion, and either a successor reference or an explicit no-successor reason; a blank successor is invalid."`

**D9 — No comparability-verdict enumeration, and the artifacts carry two conflicting vocabularies.**
LS and the Claude study use `comparable | comparable-with-adjustment | not-comparable`; Grok INV-07 uses `comparable | partial | incomparable`. PC declares neither, yet fixture `mixed-value-classes` expects "comparability verdicts". An unenumerated verdict is unverifiable.
*Remediation:* add to PC `"enumerations": {"comparabilityVerdict": ["comparable","partial","incomparable"]}`; insert constraint: `"A comparability verdict is exactly one of comparable, partial or incomparable; partial requires a declared justified outcome class with class-specific criteria restated for that class and the adjustment stated; silence is not comparability; co-membership in a scope is never comparability."` In LS §"Time, scenario and acceptance", replace `"All are comparable only with declared adjustment"` with `"All are partial, with the declared adjustment recorded"`; in LS invariant 3 replace `"comparable-with-adjustment"` semantics with the `partial` label. No semantic reversal: Claude's "comparable-with-adjustment" maps onto Grok's `partial`, and the LS acceptance scenario (shared justified outcome class) remains admissible while Grok's cross-class price-per-unit case remains `incomparable`.

**D10 — No outcome-overlap claim-status enumeration, and the completeness rule is not stated.**
PC constraint 6 lists the four evidence classes but not the status vocabulary (LS: suspected/substantiated/refuted with method, evidence, contradictions, confidence) nor Grok INV-09's rule that missing any one evidence invalidates the claim.
*Remediation:* add `"enumerations".outcomeOverlapClaimStatus = ["suspected","substantiated","refuted"]`; replace constraint 6 with: `"A duplicate-outcome claim records status suspected, substantiated or refuted with method, evidence references, retained contradicting evidence and confidence; substantiation requires all four of semantic-equivalence, consumer-overlap, entitlement-overlap and substitution evidence, and missing any one caps the status at suspected; name similarity may open a review and is never evidence."`

**D11 — No retirement-state or value-type enumerations; value-type spelling is inconsistent across artifacts.**
LS fixes the dated state sequence and four non-revenue value types; the Claude study adds the two revenue types and spells them `realised-`, while LS spells `realized`. PC enumerates none, so fixtures cannot bind a value `type`.
*Remediation:* add `"enumerations".retirementState = ["announced","closed-to-new","closed-to-change","withdrawn"]` with each occurrence dated, and `"enumerations".valueType = ["realized-revenue","contracted-revenue","avoided-cost","capability-value","regulatory-necessity","strategic-option"]`; normalise all artifact prose to the `realized-` spelling.

**D12 — PC does not make catalogue existence a precondition of evaluation.**
Grok INV-13 and the visible blockers make the absent Offering/Product Catalogue allocation a blocker to operational use. PC records the absence only as a hold, so a scope evaluation or landscape release would pass the constraint set today.
*Remediation:* insert constraint: `"A scope version is evaluable only against an allocated, versioned Offering Catalogue baseline; while the catalogue candidates are unallocated, scope evaluation and landscape release are inadmissible and no evaluation result may be cited."` Append to `holds`: `"Offering Catalogue and Product Catalogue are unallocated, so the profile has no target master and no scope evaluation or landscape release is admissible; this blocks operational use and does not reopen the identity decision."`

**D13 — PC constraint 8 asserts an unevidenced mechanism and omits three evidenced elements.**
`"a reproducible fingerprint"` appears in no admitted evidence and reads as an implementation/conformance mechanism. The constraint also omits the source-as-of/computation-time distinction, in-place-rewrite prohibition and supersession addressability.
*Remediation:* replace constraint 8 with: `"Every released view pins scope version, scenario, horizon, source as-of and computation time, keeps source as-of distinct from computation time, and remains resolvable after supersession; a changed predicate, market scope or portfolio policy creates a successor scope version and never a rewrite in place; superseded scope and view versions remain addressable."`

**D14 — PC `holds` misstates the provider-review state.**
`"Independent Grok review, crosswalks, immutable pins and frozen audit remain pending"` is contradicted by the record: the provider study was returned (provider-truncated) and this is the frozen audit.
*Remediation:* replace that hold with: `"The independent provider study was returned and was provider-truncated inside its blockers paragraph after 'WM-ACT-004 Service Definition'; only the visible verdict, counterexample/scenario, thirteen invariants and minimum profile shape are admitted as evidence, and no missing provider text is reconstructed. This frozen audit is complete. Crosswalks, relationship contracts and immutable pins remain pending."`

**D15 — PC declares no profile shape.**
Both studies and LS define a minimum shape, but the machine-readable candidate has only `bases`, `constraints`, `holds`. Every shape-level fixture therefore targets an undeclared structure.
*Remediation:* add `"shape"` with two keys. `offeringPortfolioScope`: configuration version identifier, status `profile`, effective interval, market/channel/availability/policy predicate set, recorded inclusion and exclusion outcomes, portfolio policy, scenario, governance owner role, targeted catalogue version, supersession link, authority, provenance. `offeringLandscape`: view key (scope version, scenario, horizon, as-of), projection timestamp, computation time, audience, non-authoritative flag, refresh rule, provenance to catalogue baseline, comparison basis, offering rows (offering ref, product/service ref, consumer segment ref, lifecycle stage, typed value terms with method and uncertainty, criteria set with justification, comparability verdict), outcome-overlap claims with evidence and confidence, retirement and obligation-survival bindings, declared omissions, and an explicit prohibition on commitment attributes.

**D16 — LS minimum profile shape omits six Grok-evidenced elements.**
LS §"Minimal profile shape" lacks the non-authoritative flag, audience, refresh rule, targeted catalogue version, supersession link, governance owner role and the "no commitment attributes" exclusion.
*Remediation:* extend the LS shape paragraph with exactly those seven items, matching D15.

**D17 — LS invariant list is twelve items and under-specifies two reconciled rules.**
The admitted evidence base is thirteen invariants; LS omits the commitment-source rule, the authorisation rule, the citation rule, the verdict enumeration and the catalogue precondition, and LS invariant 6 requires only "semantic and consumer evidence" against the adjudicated four-evidence rule.
*Remediation:* replace the LS twelve-item list with the following thirteen, folding LS 5 into INV-08, LS 7 into INV-09, LS 3 into INV-07 and LS 11 into INV-04. These numbers are normative for `violates` below.

| # | Reconciled invariant |
|---|---|
| INV-01 | Neither candidate is a source of commercial commitment or entitlement. |
| INV-02 | Product, Service, Offering, Quote and Entitlement remain distinct subjects; none is a subtype of scope or landscape. |
| INV-03 | Scope membership is predicate-derived from versioned market, channel, availability and policy predicates at a stated as-of; never owned membership identity. |
| INV-04 | The landscape reads masters and writes none, and cannot authorise a quote, order, subscription, entitlement grant or retirement. |
| INV-05 | Decisions and citations reference catalogue state plus a frozen scope version, never the landscape. |
| INV-06 | Comparison without a declared basis, class-specific justified criteria (metric, unit, observation window, source, justification) and an explicit verdict is invalid; co-membership is not comparability. |
| INV-07 | A verdict is exactly one of comparable, partial, incomparable; partial requires a declared justified outcome class, restated class-specific criteria and a stated adjustment. |
| INV-08 | Zero external revenue never implies zero value and missing price never means free; internal services carry typed non-revenue value with method and uncertainty; zero revenue is never scored as zero value in a ranking. |
| INV-09 | A duplicate-outcome claim fails if any of semantic, consumer, entitlement or substitution evidence is missing; name similarity is never evidence; status is suspected, substantiated or refuted with confidence and retained contradicting evidence. |
| INV-10 | Retirement never cancels quotes, order lines, subscriptions, contracts, obligations or entitlements by inference; each closes on its own master by its own authorized outcome. |
| INV-11 | Every retirement record states dated states, support window, retention window, migration path, entitlement conversion, and successor or explicit no-successor reason. |
| INV-12 | Prior scope and view versions remain addressable and reproducible after supersession; source as-of and computation time stay distinct; no in-place rewrite. |
| INV-13 | Allocated, versioned catalogue masters must exist before a scope profile is evaluated or a landscape released. |

**D18 — FX negatives are not machine-verifiable.**
All four negatives (`missing-price-free`, `name-proves-duplicate`, `retirement-cancels-contract`, `scenario-writes-master`) carry only prose `expect` — no `expectedCode`, no `violates`, no `target`. None of the seven cases is bound to an invariant.
*Remediation:* preserve all seven cases with `id`, `kind`, `input` and `expect` unchanged and annotate in place — add `target` to all seven, `violates` to all seven (`mixed-value-classes` → INV-06, INV-07, INV-08; `retirement-survival` → INV-10; `inactive-offering` → INV-02; `missing-price-free` → INV-08; `name-proves-duplicate` → INV-09; `retirement-cancels-contract` → INV-10; `scenario-writes-master` → INV-04), and `expectedCode` to the four negatives: `LND07_MISSING_PRICE_NOT_FREE`, `LND07_NAME_NOT_EVIDENCE`, `LND07_RETIREMENT_NO_INFERRED_CANCEL`, `LND07_PROJECTION_READ_ONLY`.

**D19 — FX coverage gap.**
The seven existing cases touch INV-02, 04, 06, 08, 09, 10 only in part and leave INV-01, 03, 05, 07, 11, 12, 13 entirely untested, with no case for: absent verdict, cross-class shared basis, co-membership comparability, incomplete criterion, untyped internal value, zero-revenue ranking, four-evidence incompleteness, landscape-as-authorisation, landscape citation, commitment attributes, silent exclusion gap, blank successor, undated retirement state, in-place scope mutation, unaddressable superseded version, evaluation without a catalogue baseline, scope version as business identity, service as zero-price product, undeclared omissions, unevidenced base role, missing non-authoritative flag.
*Remediation:* add the 27 fixtures in section 3 verbatim; each carries `closesDefect` binding it to the defect it discharges.

---

## 3. Additional deterministic fixtures

```json
[
  {"id":"comparison-verdict-absent","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A released view compares two in-scope offerings with declared basis and criteria but records no comparability verdict on the pair.","expect":"The view is rejected; a verdict from the closed enumeration is mandatory and silence is not comparability.","violates":"INV-06, INV-07","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"LND07_COMPARABILITY_VERDICT_REQUIRED"},
  {"id":"cross-class-shared-basis","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A prepaid mobile data bundle and a seat-based software licence are compared on price per unit of data as a single shared basis.","expect":"The comparison is rejected; the basis is not shared across classes and the verdict is incomparable.","violates":"INV-06, INV-07","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"LND07_BASIS_NOT_SHARED"},
  {"id":"partial-verdict-with-adjustment","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"positive","input":"A SaaS offering, a device offering and an internal service are compared under one declared and justified outcome class, with criteria restated per class and the adjustment stated.","expect":"The pairs are admitted with verdict partial, each criterion justified against the declared class and the adjustment recorded.","violates":"INV-06, INV-07","closesDefect":"D9"},
  {"id":"co-membership-comparability","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"Two offerings are declared comparable on the sole ground that both are admitted by scope version V.","expect":"The declaration is rejected; co-membership in a scope is not comparability.","violates":"INV-06","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"LND07_COMEMBERSHIP_NOT_COMPARABILITY"},
  {"id":"criterion-incomplete","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A criterion is recorded with a metric and a number but no unit, observation window, source master or justification.","expect":"The criterion is rejected and the enclosing comparison is invalid.","violates":"INV-06","closesDefect":"D9","expectedCode":"LND07_CRITERION_INCOMPLETE"},
  {"id":"internal-service-untyped-value","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"An internal identity-provisioning service row records realized-revenue 0 and no typed non-revenue value term.","expect":"The row is rejected; a typed non-revenue value with method and uncertainty is required.","violates":"INV-08","closesDefect":"D7","expectedCode":"LND07_TYPED_VALUE_REQUIRED"},
  {"id":"zero-revenue-scored-zero","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A landscape ranking orders the internal service last by scoring its zero external revenue as zero value, ignoring its typed avoided-cost term.","expect":"The ranking is rejected; zero external revenue is never scored as zero value.","violates":"INV-08","closesDefect":"D7","expectedCode":"LND07_ZERO_REVENUE_NOT_SCORED"},
  {"id":"internal-no-charge-admission","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"positive","input":"An internal service is admitted to scope by an explicit no-charge offering policy predicate rather than by an absent price.","expect":"The admission is accepted, the no-charge policy is recorded as the inclusion outcome, and the absence of price is not read as free.","violates":"INV-03, INV-08","closesDefect":"D7"},
  {"id":"duplicate-missing-substitution","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A duplicate-outcome claim is marked substantiated with semantic, consumer and entitlement evidence but no substitution or migration evidence.","expect":"Substantiation is rejected; the status may not exceed suspected while any of the four evidence classes is missing.","violates":"INV-09","closesDefect":"D10","expectedCode":"LND07_DUPLICATE_EVIDENCE_INCOMPLETE"},
  {"id":"duplicate-internal-refuted","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"positive","input":"Internal identity provisioning is claimed to duplicate a commercial identity offering; the consumer scope is internal-only, no customer entitlement exists and provider accountability differs.","expect":"The claim is recorded as refuted with method, evidence, retained contradicting evidence and confidence; neither offering is collapsed.","violates":"INV-09","closesDefect":"D10"},
  {"id":"landscape-authorises-entitlement","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A landscape row is used as the authorization for granting an entitlement and for accepting an order line.","expect":"The authorization is rejected; the landscape can authorise no quote, order, subscription, entitlement grant or retirement.","violates":"INV-01, INV-04","closesDefect":"D4","expectedCode":"LND07_NO_AUTHORISATION_FROM_PROJECTION"},
  {"id":"decision-cites-landscape","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A portfolio rationalisation decision cites a landscape extract as the authoritative admitted set instead of catalogue state plus a frozen scope version.","expect":"The citation is rejected; decisions cite catalogue state and a frozen scope version.","violates":"INV-05","closesDefect":"D5","expectedCode":"LND07_CITATION_MUST_BE_CATALOGUE_AND_SCOPE"},
  {"id":"scope-citation-in-obligation","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"positive","input":"A partner contract grants exclusivity over the offerings admitted by scope version V for market M and channel C; the obligation master stores the frozen scope version and the catalogue baseline it was evaluated against.","expect":"The citation is admitted, the duty stays on the contract and obligation masters, and no business identity is minted for the scope.","violates":"INV-01, INV-05","closesDefect":"D5"},
  {"id":"landscape-commitment-attribute","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A landscape row carries a recipient-addressed price and acceptance window and is sent to a customer as a proposal.","expect":"The row is rejected; the landscape carries no commitment attributes and a quote is formed only on its own master.","violates":"INV-01, INV-02","closesDefect":"D15","expectedCode":"LND07_NO_COMMITMENT_ATTRIBUTES"},
  {"id":"silent-exclusion-gap","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"A catalogue candidate is absent from the evaluation output and is reported as excluded, with no recorded predicate outcome for it.","expect":"The exclusion is rejected; exclusion, override and exception are explicit recorded predicate outcomes.","violates":"INV-03","closesDefect":"D6","expectedCode":"LND07_EXCLUSION_MUST_BE_EXPLICIT"},
  {"id":"retirement-blank-successor","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"An offering retirement record leaves the successor reference blank and records no no-successor reason.","expect":"The record is rejected; a successor reference or an explicit no-successor reason is mandatory.","violates":"INV-11","closesDefect":"D8","expectedCode":"LND07_SUCCESSOR_OR_REASON_REQUIRED"},
  {"id":"retirement-state-undated","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"An offering is recorded as closed-to-new and withdrawn with no date on either state and no support or retention window.","expect":"The record is rejected; every retirement state is dated and support and retention windows are stated.","violates":"INV-11","closesDefect":"D8","expectedCode":"LND07_RETIREMENT_STATE_DATED"},
  {"id":"retirement-record-complete","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"positive","input":"The data bundle is retired with dated announced, closed-to-new, closed-to-change and withdrawn states, support and retention windows, successor reference, migration path and entitlement conversion, while open quotes, order lines, subscriptions, contracts, obligations and entitlements remain active.","expect":"The retirement is accepted, every dependent commitment persists on its own master until its own authorized outcome, the seat licence and internal service are unaffected, and historic offering versions stay resolvable.","violates":"INV-10, INV-11","closesDefect":"D8"},
  {"id":"scope-version-mutated-in-place","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"The market scope and portfolio policy of an effective scope version are edited in place.","expect":"The edit is rejected; a changed predicate, market scope or portfolio policy creates a successor scope version.","violates":"INV-12","closesDefect":"D13","expectedCode":"LND07_SCOPE_VERSION_IMMUTABLE"},
  {"id":"superseded-scope-unaddressable","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"A superseded scope version is no longer addressable, so a view released under it cannot be recomputed or audited.","expect":"The supersession is rejected; prior scope and view versions remain addressable after supersession.","violates":"INV-12","closesDefect":"D13","expectedCode":"LND07_PRIOR_VERSION_ADDRESSABLE"},
  {"id":"view-recompute-reproducible","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"positive","input":"A view is recomputed with the same view key and the same pinned source as-of at a later computation time.","expect":"The prior view is reproduced identically and the later computation is recorded as a new view version with source as-of distinct from computation time, the prior version remaining retrievable.","violates":"INV-12","closesDefect":"D13"},
  {"id":"evaluation-without-catalogue-baseline","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"A scope version is evaluated against the unallocated Offering Catalogue candidate and a landscape is released from the result.","expect":"The evaluation and release are rejected as inadmissible until an allocated, versioned catalogue baseline exists.","violates":"INV-13","closesDefect":"D12","expectedCode":"LND07_CATALOGUE_BASELINE_REQUIRED"},
  {"id":"scope-version-as-business-identity","target":"OfferingPortfolioScope","kind":"negative","input":"A scope version identifier is treated as a sellable, quotable or entitled identity and a runtime or model identifier is requested for it.","expect":"Both are rejected; the scope version identifier is configuration identity for governance and citation only and no runtime or model identifier is allocated.","violates":"INV-01, INV-02","closesDefect":"D3","expectedCode":"LND07_CONFIGURATION_IDENTITY_ONLY"},
  {"id":"service-as-zero-price-product","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"An employee identity-provisioning service is published in a landscape row as a zero-price product, and a second row merges an offering and its product into one record.","expect":"Both rows are rejected; Product, Service, Offering, Quote and Entitlement remain distinct subjects and are never flattened.","violates":"INV-02","closesDefect":"D3","expectedCode":"LND07_SUBJECTS_DISTINCT"},
  {"id":"landscape-undeclared-omission","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"Rows are dropped from a released view because a source master was unavailable at computation time, with no declared omission.","expect":"The view is rejected; omissions are declared with their cause and affected scope.","violates":"INV-12","closesDefect":"D15","expectedCode":"LND07_OMISSIONS_DECLARED"},
  {"id":"nonauthoritative-flag-missing","target":"OfferingLandscape","kind":"negative","input":"A view is released without the non-authoritative flag, audience, refresh rule or provenance to a catalogue baseline.","expect":"The release is rejected; all four shape elements are mandatory on a released projection.","violates":"INV-01, INV-04","closesDefect":"D15","expectedCode":"LND07_NONAUTHORITATIVE_FLAG_REQUIRED"},
  {"id":"basis-role-unevidenced","target":"profile-candidate","kind":"negative","input":"A base identifier is listed in bases with no entry in basisRoles and no evidenced role in the frozen dossier.","expect":"The candidate is rejected until every base carries exactly one evidenced role or is moved to holds.","violates":"INV-13","closesDefect":"D1, D2","expectedCode":"LND07_BASIS_ROLE_REQUIRED"}
]
```

**Counts.** Material defects: **19** (D1–D19). Prior fixtures preserved unchanged in id, kind, input and expect: **7** (3 positive, 4 negative). Additional fixtures: **27** (6 positive, 21 negative). Total fixtures after this audit: **34** (9 positive, 25 negative). Every one of the 21 additional negatives carries an `expectedCode`; positives carry none by design.

---

## 4. Freeze decision

**Semantics: FROZEN. Artifacts: CONDITIONAL — freeze on mechanical application of D1–D19 and the 27 fixtures.**

- The EM-LND-07 identity decision is frozen now and is not reopened: profile, not subject; no independent business identity; no runtime or model identifier allocated; Product, Service, Offering, Quote and Entitlement remain distinct; membership predicate-derived; comparison requires declared basis, class-specific justified criteria and an explicit verdict; typed non-revenue value required for internal services; four-evidence rule for duplicate-outcome claims; retirement never cancels downstream commitments by inference.
- No re-study is authorised. Nothing in the submitted artifacts contradicts the reconciled decision; D1–D19 are all closable from admitted evidence by deletion, substitution of exact text, enumeration declaration, annotation or fixture addition. The provider truncation after "WM-ACT-004 Service Definition" is recorded as truncation (D14) and is not reconstructed, extended or used to justify further provider work.
- Freeze completes when the remediated profile candidate carries the 13 reconciled invariants as constraints, `basisRoles` for every retained base, the four enumerations, the two-part shape, and the corrected holds; and when the fixture file carries 34 cases with codes on all 25 negatives.
- Remaining blockers are operational and do not gate the freeze of semantics: Product Catalogue, Offering Catalogue and Consumption Entitlement are unallocated, so the profile has no target master and no scope evaluation or landscape release is admissible; WM-ACT-004 has no read publication specification, so service semantics rest on the EM-PRD-02 checkpoint; adjacent commercial models remain non-canonical drafts, several under single-provider waiver; crosswalks, relationship contracts and immutable pins are absent.
- No canonical completeness, standards conformance, installability or publication readiness is claimed by this audit, and no identifier is allocated or invented in it.