Assess whether disagreement should block, queue, or log (8e24fa)

SITUATION Multi-model reconciliation lead in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor has one working extract — reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality — after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output. If reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality cannot support disagreement should block, queue,, the only defensible AI Governance Layer output is hold.

DECISION Multi-model reconciliation lead in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor must choose Disagreement should block, queue, / Log using reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. An examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output is noise around an already-controlled Audit and Vendor Terms process in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor, given reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality. 2. An examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output is the event in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality that forces Disagreement should block, queue, for multi-model reconciliation lead under AI Governance Layer. 3. Reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality shows a one-file miss after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output, not a Audit and Vendor Terms program failure. 4. Reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality cannot decide disagreement should block, queue, yet after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output; hold is the only AI Governance Layer close an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor can defend.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Name the override that would let disagreement should block, queue, proceed without a silent bypass. 2. 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. 3. Score whether the agent action in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality was in-policy, out-of-policy, or unlogged. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Audit and Vendor Terms file, read reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality against an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output and write the one fact that would move disagreement should block, queue, for multi-model reconciliation lead.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Disagreement should block, queue, / Log on this AI Governance Layer / Audit and Vendor Terms packet (reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output). Lead with the AI Governance Layer option reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality can support after an examiner asking who authorized last Tuesday's model output, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for multi-model reconciliation lead in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor.