# EM-ORG-02 provider comparison

Claude and Grok independently converge on **PROFILE** across `WM-ORG-001`, `WM-ORG-010` and `WM-ORG-011`, with no new catalogue or runtime identifier. `WM-ORG-001` remains the sole organization/legal-subject identity and continuity master. `WM-ORG-010` is narrowed to registration records, each linked to exactly one subject after explicit evidence-backed resolution. `WM-ORG-011` is narrowed to operating presence and never establishes personality or mints a subject.

Both reject identity merge from a new extract, equal unqualified number or premises; separate legal personality, registration and presence; and preserve predecessor identity on historical contracts through succession. Grok sharpens the contract with a four-part identifier key (scheme, authority or jurisdiction, number, overlapping validity), six independently dated status planes, four separate branch tests, explicit field moves from WM-ORG-001/011 into WM-ORG-010, and a ban on dual writes of subject status. These refinements preserve the PROFILE decision and make the migration boundary testable.

Both providers keep publication held because every base is noncanonical, WM-ORG-010 requires a breaking re-subjecting migration and status crosswalk, WM-ORG-011 lacks independent review, source pins remain unresolved, and no executable fixtures exist.