# EM-PRD-05 provider comparison

Claude and Grok agree that IPAsset is a non-authoritative view, IPRegistration and RightsClaim profile WM-KNW-003 with WM-REC-001 evidence, and no new model or runtime identifier is justified. Protected subject, right, application, registration, claim, attribution, assignment, grant and obligation remain separate.

Claude identified UsageGrant as the only plausible future root because it can have an addressable lifecycle. Grok showed that the evidence packet contains only grants tied to contracts and obligations. The reconciled model therefore uses an addressable contract-local permission envelope, including intra-contract sublicences, without a standalone model root. Standalone identity is reopened only if authoritative evidence proves instrument-independent grants.

Both providers require territorial registration, explicit grant scope, independent clocks, sourced claims, bounded sublicence and surviving WM-XCT-029 obligations. Grok strengthened the prohibition on deriving worldwide exclusivity from brand or logo use. The frozen audit accepted with five limits; candidate `0.1.0-candidate.3` resolves mastership and addressability while holding retroactivity, subject-authority and right-termination effect policy.