# Claude browser review: disposition by Codex

Actual provider memo: `claude-browser.review.md`. The CLI timeout remains terminal evidence in `claude.manifest.json`; the successful browser design review is recorded separately. Neither external memo is relabeled as schema-valid structured output.

Accepted and integrated:
- One governing work context, narrative-only mode, and zero-assessment draft.
- Cross-case Calibration Session and shared/team Objective remain peers; case-local outcomes and commitments belong here.
- Independent awards remain external. The case may own an acknowledgement or reward recommendation and must not execute pay. This is distinct from the whole-object recognition/observation facet.
- Unknown or disputed attribution is explicit and never inferred from activity counts or equal shares.
- AI assistance provenance, leave/opportunity context without copying medical details, original language and translation provenance, and explicit retention/appeal policies.
- Preserve applicable disagreement and qualifications when disclosing an assessment. The reference fixture validates a conservative include-disputes rule; production field-level privacy balancing is still an explicit hold.
- Repeated calibration and appeals now have an executable positive fixture.

Modified or rejected:
- The proposed subject/context/program/period natural key is only a duplicate-detection signal. Purpose-specific parallel lanes and distinct mandates can be legitimate; the model does not universally merge them.
- No universal annual/half-year period, mandatory monitoring ceremony, minimum service period or maximum appeal depth is imposed. These are explicit program-profile choices.
- Employment, contracts and founder mandates are current reference-profile bindings; extension to membership/work-assignment-only profiles is a declared follow-up, not a fabricated Employment.
- A numerical contribution share may be stored as an asserted or disputed claim with its method; it is not restricted to agreed truth. The model does not promote it to accepted credit automatically.
- Evidence logs may be retained as excluded or contested evidence of how a bad decision occurred. They may not become a sole or automatic basis for the issued assessment. Rejecting every log record would erase important dispute evidence.
- An authorized narrow reference is possible across employers. A universal ban on all cross-controller disclosure would prohibit legitimate purpose-limited attestations. No master dossier or intrinsic person score moves by default.
- Physical copies or governed snapshots of evidence may sometimes be necessary under retention and integrity policy. This case stores citations and versions; it does not claim all permissible evidence snapshots are illegal.

Source adjudication:
- W3C final Recommendations take precedence over historical editor commits or mailing-list comments.
- Codex directly checked the official HR Open overview and SFIA LEDA page, so legacy third-party schema mirrors are not the basis of the adopted source map.
- The incomplete URL containing an ellipsis is rejected as a source.
- Vendor claims about AI Act application dates, ESCO counts, unverified article mappings, and third-party legal commentary are not promoted into normative rules.
- No compliance, licensed schema equivalence, automatic fairness guarantee or production enforcement claim is adopted.

Publication disposition: suitable for a reviewed research draft if the frozen no-tools audit finds no unresolved critical contradiction. The broad Enterprise contour remains partially complete until full profiles, precise source crosswalks, mastership coverage and installation scenarios are finished.