# EM-LND-12 provider comparison

Claude and Grok agree that neither ServiceLandscape nor ServiceDependencyGraph warrants a new model or runtime identity. WM-XCT-039 remains the tenant-bounded graph boundary, membership, ownership-map and named-view host. WM-XCT-037 remains the sole edge-semantic authority. A second dependency graph would create dual mastership.

Both require Service, software system, runtime/instance/environment and resource identities to remain separate, with SLO, observation and incident outside the landscape. Both distinguish declared, observed and inferred edges; desired and observed state; confirmation and propagation licence; direct dependency and common-mode correlation; exposure and actual failure.

Grok strengthened tenant and federation rules: a named view grants no privilege, federation is an explicit WM-XCT-039 projection grant, common-mode edges default to no propagation, and incomplete topology keeps the blast radius open. Claude's frozen audit accepted the result with six limits. Candidate `0.1.0-candidate.3` assigns traversal-result mastership to WM-XCT-039, lists WM-SFT-009, filters common-mode counts by tenant, excludes exposed-unconfirmed from impact, delegates staleness/confidence policy to WM-XCT-037, and requires promotion to create a new edge with lineage.