Assess whether vendor terms allow customer data in training (f8e96b)

SITUATION AI committee secretariat in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy has one working extract — committee charter that does not define escalation — after an agent that refunded customers above its limit. If committee charter that does not define escalation cannot support vendor terms allow customer, the only defensible AI Governance Layer output is hold.

DECISION AI committee secretariat in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using committee charter that does not define escalation after an agent that refunded customers above its limit.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Policy or governance breach now; committee charter that does not define escalation already has the discriminator after an agent that refunded customers above its limit. 2. Keep Model defect in force until committee charter that does not define escalation is completed after an agent that refunded customers above its limit for AI committee secretariat. 3. Treat committee charter that does not define escalation as Dual failure because both readings appear after an agent that refunded customers above its limit. 4. Refuse a AI Governance Layer close: AI committee secretariat does not have the decision vendor terms allow customer turns on in committee charter that does not define escalation.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Confirm the inventory line still matches the running configuration in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy. 2. Map the control-plane score in committee charter that does not define escalation to the policy gate AI committee secretariat can enforce. 3. Name the override that would let vendor terms allow customer proceed without a silent bypass. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Lifecycle and Accountability file, read committee charter that does not define escalation against an agent that refunded customers above its limit 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 / Lifecycle and Accountability packet (committee charter that does not define escalation after an agent that refunded customers above its limit). The follow-on Lifecycle and Accountability action is what AI committee secretariat does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance Layer option on vendor terms allow customer, then the evidence in committee charter that does not define escalation, then the action for AI committee secretariat - Hypothesis scorecard against committee charter that does not define escalation: supported / rejected / untestable - What changes vendor terms allow customer if an agent that refunded customers above its limit is later withdrawn - Named option among Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure and the fact that kills the others