Assess whether procurement should fail a vendor lacking eval rights (f2d421)

SITUATION Reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality arrived with a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice for enterprise AI control-plane owner. That is a AI Governance Layer Audit and Vendor Terms decision on procurement should fail a in a firm whose vendor MSA is silent on training rights.

DECISION Enterprise AI control-plane owner in a firm whose vendor MSA is silent on training rights must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. The population in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality is the one a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice named, so Policy or governance breach follows for this Audit and Vendor Terms file. 2. The population in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality is adjacent only to a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice; Model defect is the honest AI Governance Layer call. 3. A firm whose vendor MSA is silent on training rights already contained a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice before reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality arrived; no new Audit and Vendor Terms path. 4. Provenance on reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice is broken; do not pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect yet.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the control-plane score in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality to the policy gate enterprise AI control-plane owner can enforce. 2. Name the override that would let procurement should fail a proceed without a silent bypass. 3. Test whether a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Audit and Vendor Terms file, read reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality against a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice and write the one fact that would move procurement should fail a for enterprise AI control-plane owner.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance Layer / Audit and Vendor Terms packet (reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice). The follow-on Audit and Vendor Terms action is what enterprise AI control-plane owner does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance Layer option on procurement should fail a, then the evidence in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality, then the action for enterprise AI control-plane owner - Hypothesis scorecard against reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality: supported / rejected / untestable - Audit and Vendor Terms finding in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality that a second reviewer can re-perform - Missing page in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice, if any