# EM-TEC-05 provider comparison

Claude and Grok agree that EM-TEC-05 creates no new model or runtime identifier. The retained WM-ACT-019 identifier requires a registry-reviewed semantic replacement above legacy `0.2.0`, not a thin profile or a lower candidate version.

Both providers separate observation, incident declaration, cyber qualification, persistent Problem, version-pinned Defect, Task and communication. Reconciled identity uses one declaration per `occurrenceRef`. Cyber-first and operational-first paths share the governing declaration decision; a retained peer record is a qualification or mirror, never a second incident master.

WM-KNW-014 remains the Problem master. RootCauseClaim is a first-class namespaced Problem child with append-only status history, evidence, confidence and provenance; competing supported and disputed claims coexist. WM-SFT-014 remains an external reserved Defect reference and requires a revision pin. WM-ACT-006 owns work execution.

The frozen Claude audit accepted those boundaries and returned REVISE for carrier, transition, reference, clock, migration and fixture gaps. All 16 blocking groups and eight non-blocking corrections were remediated deterministically without rerunning the audit. Candidate `0.2.1-candidate.1` has 33 invariants and 32 fixtures. Publication remains held for registry, neighbor and migration approval.