# EM-LND-16 provider comparison

Claude and Grok agree that Knowledge Landscape is a governed, non-mastering profile declaration and Decision Dependency View is a reproducible projection. Neither receives catalogue, runtime or subject-matter identity. Concepts, scheme releases, claims, citations, documents, decisions and issued decision records retain their existing masters; the landscape handle and view fingerprint are governance coordinates only.

The reconciled shape adopts Grok's explicit safeguards against identity creep. A landscape cannot act as a concept scheme, assertion store, merge authority or decision-validity authority. A projection fingerprint consists only of query rules, pinned source releases and evaluation time. When an auditable declaration or run must be retained, it is expressed through existing WM-REC-010 or WM-REC-001 records rather than a new view type.

Retraction and rebuttal append dated source observations and trigger notify-and-recheck paths. Recheck is mandatory notice, while a decision changes only through an explicit competent-authority act. Shared citation never couples decision fate. A remains-effective conclusion after retraction must itself be explicit and dated. Pins reproduce historical source-release state and are never rewritten by later observations.

Term identity remains scheme-qualified, labels never merge concepts, and absence of a citation remains uncertainty rather than falsity. Every projection exposes unevidenced claims as unevidenced. Rights are intersected across every participating node before generation; indexes, closures, counts, co-citation, summaries, paraphrases and inferred correspondences cannot reveal restricted existence or relationships.

Evidence Artifact / Source Work remains identifier-unassigned and all base canonicality, crosswalk and relation-ledger holds remain publication blockers rather than reasons to allocate either landscape candidate.