# EM-ORG-01 provider comparison

+Claude and Grok independently converge on **PROFILE** over `WM-ORG-001` and `WM-ORG-012`, with no new catalogue or runtime identifier. Company remains a constrained organization view. EnterpriseGroup / BusinessBoundary remains a purpose-qualified relationship perimeter and reproducible bitemporal projection.

+Both providers reject identity inference from a shared brand, name, site or affiliation; preserve rebranding continuity; separate management, consolidation, ownership/control, statistical, franchise and alliance graphs; and require explicit membership basis, evidence, authority, stewardship and dispute/absence semantics.

+Grok sharpens the boundary by naming a perimeter-specification identity, requiring inclusion dates, refusing an unqualified union graph, demoting the registry parent relation from WM-ORG-012 to WM-ORG-001 into a reference, and keeping legal personality and ownership shares with sibling models. It also states a strict split trigger: any true group actor would still be a WM-ORG-001 instance after independent identity, obligations/capacity and external mastership are proven. These refinements do not change the PROFILE decision.
+