Assess whether vendor terms allow customer data in training (1b3eaa)

SITUATION Post-deployment monitoring owner owns this Lifecycle and Accountability review in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor. Two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file is the triggering event; deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job is the evidence for whether vendor terms allow customer data in training.

DECISION Post-deployment monitoring owner in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor must choose Policy or governance breach, Model defect, Dual failure, Hold for the missing fact using deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job after two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file. The question on that file is whether vendor terms allow customer data in training.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file is noise around an already-controlled Lifecycle and Accountability process in an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor, given deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job. 2. Two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file is the event in deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job that forces Policy or governance breach for post-deployment monitoring owner under AI Governance Layer. 3. Deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job shows a one-file miss after two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file, not a Lifecycle and Accountability program failure. 4. Deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job cannot decide vendor terms allow customer yet after two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file; hold is the only AI Governance Layer close an enterprise that just bought an AI 'control plane' vendor can defend.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the control-plane score in deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job to the policy gate post-deployment monitoring owner can enforce. 2. Name the override that would let vendor terms allow customer proceed without a silent bypass. 3. Test whether two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Lifecycle and Accountability file, read deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job against two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file and write the one fact that would move vendor terms allow customer for post-deployment monitoring owner.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact on this AI Governance Layer / Lifecycle and Accountability packet (deprecation plan for a model still in a batch job after two production models recommending opposite actions on the same file). The follow-on Lifecycle and Accountability action is what post-deployment monitoring owner does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.