Assess whether vendor terms allow customer data in training (bd2cc9)

SITUATION Multi-model disagreement log on production cases arrived with a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice for AI committee secretariat. That is a AI Governance Layer Control Plane and Scoring decision on vendor terms allow customer in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions.

DECISION AI committee secretariat in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Policy or governance breach now; multi-model disagreement log on production cases already has the discriminator after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice. 2. Keep Model defect in force until multi-model disagreement log on production cases is completed after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice for AI committee secretariat. 3. Treat multi-model disagreement log on production cases as Dual failure because both readings appear after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice. 4. Refuse a AI Governance Layer close: AI committee secretariat does not have the decision vendor terms allow customer turns on in multi-model disagreement log on production cases.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Name the override that would let vendor terms allow customer proceed without a silent bypass. 2. Test whether a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 3. Score whether the agent action in multi-model disagreement log on production cases was in-policy, out-of-policy, or unlogged. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Control Plane and Scoring file, read multi-model disagreement log on production cases against a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice and write the one fact that would move vendor terms allow customer for AI committee secretariat.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance Layer / Control Plane and Scoring packet (multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice). If multi-model disagreement log on production cases cannot force a AI Governance Layer label under Control Plane and Scoring, stop. Do not invent missing evidence a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions does not have.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance Layer option on vendor terms allow customer, then the evidence in multi-model disagreement log on production cases, then the action for AI committee secretariat - Hypothesis scorecard against multi-model disagreement log on production cases: supported / rejected / untestable - Named option among Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure and the fact that kills the others - Owner and next date for AI committee secretariat in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions