## Verdict

The frozen set is internally coherent and its core governance stance — Knowledge Landscape as a non-mastering profile declaration, Decision Dependency View as a read-only pinned projection, no new identifier — is supported by both the local evidence and the provider comparison, and is correctly held as a research checkpoint rather than a release. It is acceptable as a checkpoint. It is **not** acceptable as a ratifiable profile: the candidate drops binding detail that the local evidence carries, leaves three invariants without any declared master, and contains one unresolved conflict between historical reproducibility and access propagation that is a disclosure risk rather than a documentation gap. Nothing in the set claims standards compliance, and no identifier is allocated.

## Material defects

**1. No class→base mastership map in the candidate; two asserted masters do not exist.** The candidate states that "Concepts, terms, scheme releases, claims, citation acts, documents, records, decision content and issued decision records retain separate source mastership" without binding any class to a base ID, and "documents" has no master in the base list at all (the only candidate for it, Evidence Artifact / Source Work, is declared identifier-unassigned). *Remediation:* add an explicit class→base-ID ownership map to the candidate, mirroring the local evidence's "Mastership and graph boundary" paragraph, and remove "documents" from the list of classes with existing mastership until EM-KNW-02 resolves.

**2. The candidate flattens the reuse/adjacency distinction.** Local evidence reuses WM-KNW-006, WM-KNW-010 and WM-REC-001 and names WM-KNW-007, WM-KNW-008, WM-REC-010 and WM-KNW-018 as *adjacent* masters; `bases` lists all seven as peers. *Remediation:* split `bases` into reuse bases and adjacent masters, or annotate each entry with its role.

**3. `EM-KNW-02` is unsupported inside the frozen set.** The hold attributes the Evidence Artifact question to EM-KNW-02, but neither the local evidence nor the provider comparison mentions that contour. *Remediation:* drop the identifier from the hold, or add the corresponding sentence to the local evidence so the reference resolves within the set.

**4. Source-status observations on non-governed cited items have no editable master, breaking invariant 1.** Retraction is specified to "append dated observations on their source masters," but a cited item that is not a governed record has no master while Evidence Artifact is unassigned — so a retraction of exactly the class of source most likely to be retracted cannot be recorded. *Remediation:* state that until EM-KNW-02 resolves, such observations are carried on the WM-KNW-008 citation act against its consulted representation (locator plus digest).

**5. A claim evidenced only by a non-governed source has no state.** Constraint 11 and the `unevidenced-claim` fixture both define the unevidenced state as "no citation to a governed record," which silently classifies a claim cited to an identifier-unassigned source work as unevidenced. *Remediation:* add "cited to an identifier-unassigned source work" to the distinct-state list in constraint 12.

**6. Terminology-conflict observations and dependency findings have no declared owner.** Constraint 10 makes conflict a dated observation and the local evidence makes retraction produce "dependency findings," but the landscape is restricted to declaration, pins, edge registry, query rules, access propagation and projection losses — so neither artifact may live there, and no base is named. *Remediation:* assign cross-scheme terminology conflicts to WM-KNW-018 and dependency findings to the dependent decision's master (WM-KNW-010), and say so in the constraint.

**7. The required pin tuple omits concept/designation version.** Pins cover claim version, record version, scheme release, consulted representation and decision release, but WM-KNW-006 owns designations and a *global* lifecycle that is not release-bounded; an as-of-decision-time query can therefore resolve a term to a later designation. *Remediation:* add the concept/designation version to the pin tuple in constraint 4 and invariant 2.

**8. Invariant 3 and invariant 7 conflict on access, unresolved.** Replaying a pin faithfully reproduces the source-release state "at the pinned time"; nothing says whether the access labels are also replayed. If they are, a pin taken while a source was public re-discloses it after it becomes restricted. *Remediation:* add a constraint that pins bind content only and that access intersection is always evaluated at generation time against current policy. This is the one defect I would treat as blocking for any executable prototype, not just for publication.

**9. Access intersection has no fail-closed default, while WM-KNW-006 access scope is an open hold.** Constraint 13 intersects "source access restrictions across every participating node," but a node whose access-scope semantics are unresolved yields no label to intersect. *Remediation:* state that an unresolved or absent access scope is treated as most-restrictive and suppresses the derived result.

**10. Mandatory notify-and-recheck has no recorded artifact and no closure state.** Notice is called mandatory in all three documents, yet nothing persists it, so the obligation is unverifiable and indistinguishable from silence. *Remediation:* require each notice to be a dated open finding on the dependent decision's master, closable only by an explicit dated authority act, including an explicit no-change act.

**11. Notices are not subject to the access rules.** Intersection is scoped to "before generation" of indexes, closures, counts, co-citation, search results and summaries; a recheck notice is none of these and can carry a restricted source identity to a decision owner who is not cleared for it, or reveal a restricted decision to a source holder. *Remediation:* extend constraint 13 to cover notifications, with a non-leaking escalation marker when no channel is authorized for both endpoints.

**12. "Competent authority" is asserted but never bound.** Constraint 8 makes every decision transition depend on a competent-authority act, and no base is named as the master of competence or of the authority attestation. *Remediation:* bind the act to a resolvable authority attestation on the issued record under WM-REC-010, or record competence determination as an explicit open hold.

**13. Constraint 6 routes landscape declarations to WM-REC-010, which the local evidence defines as the authentic issued *decision* expression.** As written the constraint either overloads the decision-record model or implies a decision that was never made, and it sits in tension with the `view-as-decision-record` fixture. *Remediation:* state whether WM-REC-010 is decision-specific; if it is, route the declaration to WM-REC-001 and reserve WM-REC-010 for declarations genuinely issued as decisions by competent authority.

**14. Declared projection losses are dropped from the candidate.** The local evidence gives the landscape ownership of "declared projection losses"; no constraint in the candidate requires a projection to declare what it omits, so a lossy view is indistinguishable from a complete one. *Remediation:* add a constraint requiring every projection to declare its loss classes alongside its fingerprint.

**15. Suppression markers are not specified as indistinguishable.** Constraint 14 requires "only a non-leaking omission marker," but if a marker appears solely where a protected item exists, marker presence is itself the disclosure; nor is anything said about differencing across two separately permitted results over time. *Remediation:* require markers to be emitted identically whether or not a protected item exists, and add repeated-query differencing to the enumerated leakage channels in constraint 14.

**16. The candidate carries no machine-readable non-publishable status.** The local evidence says "not an installable release" and `publishableCanonical: false`; the candidate expresses this only as hold prose. *Remediation:* add an explicit `publishable: false` field to the candidate.

**17. Fixture coverage gaps (detail in the list below).** Claim *rebuttal* under WM-KNW-007 is never exercised — all twenty cases test source retraction; the as-of-now half of invariant 3, invariant 6's absence-class distinctness, invariant 8's disposed identifiers, and the edge-type registry have no cases at all. *Remediation:* add the fixtures enumerated below.

## Exact additional fixtures required

```json
[
{"id":"claim-rebuttal-notice","kind":"positive","input":"A claim bound as a decision premise is rebutted.","expect":"A dated rebuttal observation is appended on WM-KNW-007 and notify-and-recheck reaches each premise-bound decision; no decision status changes."},
{"id":"recheck-notice-tracked","kind":"positive","input":"A retraction triggers notify-and-recheck on two decisions.","expect":"Each notice is a dated open finding on the decision master, closable only by an explicit dated authority act including explicit no-change."},
{"id":"notice-crosses-access-boundary","kind":"negative","input":"A recheck notice names a restricted source to a decision owner not cleared for it.","expect":"The notice is rejected and escalated with a non-leaking marker."},
{"id":"non-competent-authority-act","kind":"negative","input":"An actor without competence supersedes a decision.","expect":"The transition is rejected."},
{"id":"authority-attestation-unresolvable","kind":"negative","input":"A supersede act cites an authority attestation that does not resolve.","expect":"The transition is rejected."},
{"id":"citation-to-unassigned-source-work","kind":"positive","input":"A claim is cited to an identifier-unassigned source work.","expect":"A distinct state is reported that is neither unevidenced nor governed-record-evidenced, and status observations are carried on the citation act's consulted representation."},
{"id":"terminology-conflict-master","kind":"positive","input":"A cross-scheme terminology conflict is observed during projection.","expect":"The observation is persisted on the cross-scheme owner, not on the landscape, and creates no identity operation."},
{"id":"as-of-now-after-retraction","kind":"positive","input":"The same query is evaluated as-of-now after a retraction observation.","expect":"The as-of-now result reflects the retraction while the earlier pin resolves unchanged."},
{"id":"designation-change-after-pin","kind":"positive","input":"A concept designation changes after a pin is taken.","expect":"The as-of-decision-time query resolves the pinned designation, not the later one."},
{"id":"policy-tightened-replay","kind":"negative","input":"A pin taken while a source was unrestricted is replayed after the source becomes restricted.","expect":"Replay of the content is rejected; access is evaluated at generation time against current policy while content pins remain historical."},
{"id":"redaction-after-pin","kind":"negative","input":"A pre-redaction pin is replayed after the source is redacted.","expect":"Re-disclosure of the redacted content is rejected; the replay resolves the redacted rendition with provenance."},
{"id":"unresolved-access-scope-node","kind":"negative","input":"A participating node whose access scope is an open hold is treated as unrestricted.","expect":"The generation is rejected; unresolved access scope is treated as most-restrictive and suppresses the result."},
{"id":"uniform-omission-marker","kind":"negative","input":"An omission marker is emitted only where a protected item exists.","expect":"The behaviour is rejected; markers must be indistinguishable from the no-protected-item case."},
{"id":"repeated-query-differencing","kind":"negative","input":"Two separately permitted results differ in a way that reveals a restricted item's existence.","expect":"The second result is suppressed before generation."},
{"id":"unregistered-edge-type","kind":"negative","input":"A projection emits an edge whose type is not in the registry or names no owning model.","expect":"The edge is rejected."},
{"id":"declared-projection-loss","kind":"positive","input":"A projection omits an out-of-scope edge class.","expect":"The omission is declared as a projection loss alongside the fingerprint."},
{"id":"absence-classes-distinct","kind":"negative","input":"Missing evidence binding, unresolved locator and dangling decision reason are reported as one unevidenced state.","expect":"The collapse is rejected; each absence class is reported separately."},
{"id":"disposed-identifier-reuse","kind":"negative","input":"A disposed record identifier is reassigned to a new record.","expect":"The reuse is rejected; the disposed identifier remains resolvable with its disposition state."},
{"id":"landscape-declaration-as-governed-record","kind":"positive","input":"An auditable landscape declaration is persisted as a governed record with custody and versioning.","expect":"The record carries the handle and pins without becoming a decision, a subject-matter aggregate or a master of any assertion."}
]
```