Verdict: Accept with a split on root status. Strategy, Business Model and Value Stream are independent master roots. Strategic Scenario keeps independent identity and lifecycle but is profiled as non-authoritative: hypothesis space only, never a source of record. Strategic Theme is contained by Strategy. Value Proposition is contained by Business Model. No identifiers are assigned. No publication-readiness claim.

Strongest evidence: A startup moving from direct sale to a marketplace changes the value mechanism (take-rate, two-sided exchange) and may recut recipient stages (onboard seller, match, settle) while the strategy choice set can stand: serve the segment, reject vertical integration. The same Decision can reference both changed roots and the unchanged choice set. A project list cannot express that split.

Strongest counterexample: A multi-industry group exiting one segment arrives as one board pack that retires a business model, sunsets a stream, and attaches a project list, all labelled “the strategy.” If that pack is allowed to be the Strategy root, identity collapses. The pack is a Decision/Approval Record referencing separate masters, not a master itself.

Identity/mastership: Strategy masters the choice set. Business Model masters the value mechanism. Value Stream masters recipient-triggered value-state stages. Strategic Scenario masters hypotheses only. Cross-links are references. No root is source of record for another’s attributes. Theme and Value Proposition have no independent lifecycle; they do not outlive their container without reassignment, which is a new containment.

Strategy/themes: Strategy owns chosen position, choice set, rejected alternatives, assumptions, horizon and review triggers. It does not own plans, projects, initiatives or organisation design. Strategic Theme is a contained classifier of choices, not a peer root. A theme without a containing Strategy is invalid.

Business model/value proposition: Business Model owns how value is created, delivered and captured: who pays, exchange logic, channel economics. It does not own organisation structure or the offer catalogue. Value Proposition is a contained claim of offered value to a recipient class. A stream may reference the proposition it realises; it does not master it.

Value stream/process: Value Stream owns outside-in stages: start state, intermediate value states, end state received by the stakeholder. Legacy Process/Workflow remains reference-only and may realise a stage. Process change does not force a stream version unless the recipient value-state changes. Profiling the stream onto process would import inside-out churn and fail the channel-shift test.

Scenarios/hypotheses: Strategic Scenario is a named hypothesis space (assumptions, option bundles, forecast ranges) with its own version lifecycle, so a set can be branched, reused across strategy reviews, or closed without a Strategy version bump. That is why it is not merged into Strategy. It is profiled as non-authoritative because promotion of its outputs to actuals, baselines or benefits would launder hypotheses into facts. Attachment-only under Strategy was considered and rejected for the reuse case; the promotion ban is an invariant, not a reason to erase identity.

Objectives/capabilities/initiatives/decisions: Reuse Goal/Objective, Initiative, Decision/Rationale, Decision/Approval Activity and Decision/Approval Record by reference. Objectives state ends; Strategy chooses among them. Initiatives realise change and are not constituents of Strategy. Decisions authorise a choice; they do not own the choice set. Capability remains legacy-only. Outcome and Benefit Realization stay the separate identifier-unassigned candidate. Forecasts stay inside Scenario. The three are distinct types.

Time/version/review: Each root versions on its own change driver. Strategy advances on choice, horizon or trigger change. Business Model advances on mechanism change. Value Stream advances on stage or recipient-state change. Scenario versions are branches, never current state. Review triggers live on Strategy and fire a review; they do not rewrite other roots. No shared baseline across roots.

Scenario: Startup, direct to marketplace — new Business Model version; stream stages may gain match and settle; Strategy choice set unchanged unless the segment thesis changes; a Decision cites the affected roots; the project list is not the Strategy. Group exit of one segment — Strategy retires that choice and records the rejected continuation; related Business Model and Value Stream are retired or archived; other segments’ models stay; any scenario that assumed continued presence is closed, not baselined.

Invariants:

1. Strategy is not a project list, roadmap or initiative portfolio.
2. Rejected alternatives stay attached to the choice set that rejected them, or an explicit none-considered rationale is recorded.
3. Strategy does not own Benefits or Outcomes.
4. Business Model does not master organisation or offer instances.
5. A Value Proposition is contained by exactly one Business Model at a time.
6. A Strategic Theme is contained by a Strategy.
7. Value Stream stages are recipient-triggered value states, not process tasks.
8. A process may realise a stage; it does not define the stage.
9. Strategic Scenario is never source of record.
10. Scenario output cannot be written as actual, baseline or realised benefit.
11. Forecast, Outcome and Benefit Realization remain distinct types.
12. Initiative realises a choice; it is not the choice.
13. Decision and Approval Record reference the roots; they do not replace them.
14. Horizon and review triggers are mandatory Strategy attributes.
15. Scenario retirement does not retire Strategy, Business Model or Value Stream.
16. A channel or segment change requires a Decision referencing the affected roots; relabeling a project list is invalid.

Minimum model set: Strategy, Business Model, Value Stream, and non-authoritative Strategic Scenario, plus contained Strategic Theme and Value Proposition, plus references to Goal/Objective, Initiative, Decision/Rationale, Decision/Approval Activity and Decision/Approval Record. Outcome/Benefit Realization stays candidate. Capability and Process stay legacy references.

Blockers: Identifier assignment is out of scope. Outcome/Benefit remains unassigned, so benefit linkage is reference-only. No coupling rule yet between Business Model version and Strategy version beyond the Decision reference. The stream-to-process link must be realisation, not merge; that rule is not yet drafted. Scenario leakage into baselines is the main integrity risk and is held only by invariant, not by an identifier scheme.

Independence decision: Do not merge any of the four. Strategy, Business Model and Value Stream are true master roots because choice, mechanism and recipient value-state have different owners and change drivers; merging any collapses the channel-shift and segment-exit cases. Strategic Scenario is independent in identity and lifecycle but profiled as non-authoritative, because a hypothesis space must be versionable and reusable without becoming a fact master. Theme and Value Proposition stay contained.