Assess whether the control plane actually controls production traffic (328c49)

SITUATION Lifecycle and Accountability work in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions now turns on the control plane actually because a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice put multi-model disagreement log on production cases in play. Multi-model reconciliation lead should say what multi-model disagreement log on production cases proves.

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 multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. The population in multi-model disagreement log on production cases is the one a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice named, so Policy or governance breach follows for this Lifecycle and Accountability file. 2. The population in multi-model disagreement log on production cases is adjacent only to a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice; Model defect is the honest AI Governance Layer call. 3. A regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions already contained a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice before multi-model disagreement log on production cases arrived; no new Lifecycle and Accountability path. 4. Provenance on multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice is broken; do not pick Policy or governance breach or Model defect yet.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Test whether a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 2. Score whether the agent action in multi-model disagreement log on production cases was in-policy, out-of-policy, or unlogged. 3. Confirm the inventory line still matches the running configuration in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Lifecycle and Accountability 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 the control plane actually 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 (multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice). Lead with the AI Governance Layer option multi-model disagreement log on production cases can support after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for multi-model reconciliation lead in a regulated entity that cannot reconstruct last month's decisions.