Assess whether vendor terms allow customer data in training (780c47)

SITUATION After an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output, procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets is what multi-model reconciliation lead can touch in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions. AI Governance Layer will live with Policy or governance breach versus Model defect on this Lifecycle and Accountability file.

DECISION Multi-model reconciliation lead 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 procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Multi-model reconciliation lead can defend Policy or governance breach from procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output in a AI Governance Layer challenge. 2. Multi-model reconciliation lead cannot defend Policy or governance breach from procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets; Model defect is what the extract actually supports after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output. 3. An examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output never reached the population in procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets — reopen intake, do not close vendor terms allow customer. 4. Two facts in procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output conflict for multi-model reconciliation lead; hold this Lifecycle and Accountability file.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the control-plane score in procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets to the policy gate multi-model reconciliation lead can enforce. 2. Name the override that would let vendor terms allow customer proceed without a silent bypass. 3. Test whether an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Lifecycle and Accountability file, read procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets against an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output and write the one fact that would move vendor terms allow customer for multi-model reconciliation lead.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance Layer / Lifecycle and Accountability packet (procurement scorecard that ignores eval datasets after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output). The follow-on Lifecycle and Accountability action is what multi-model reconciliation lead does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.