Assess whether procurement should fail a vendor lacking eval rights (43eade)

SITUATION The working file is multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice. Multi-model reconciliation lead in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy has to name Policy or governance breach or Model defect for this AI Governance Layer Control Plane and Scoring file.

DECISION Multi-model reconciliation lead in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy 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 Control Plane and Scoring 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 publisher needing provenance on generated copy already contained a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice before multi-model disagreement log on production cases arrived; no new Control Plane and Scoring 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. Name the override that would let procurement should fail a proceed without a silent bypass. 2. Test whether a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 3. Score whether the agent action in multi-model disagreement log on production cases was in-policy, out-of-policy, or unlogged. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Control Plane and Scoring 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 procurement should fail a 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 / Control Plane and Scoring packet (multi-model disagreement log on production cases after a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice). The follow-on Control Plane and Scoring action is what multi-model reconciliation lead does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line AI Governance Layer option on procurement should fail a, then the evidence in multi-model disagreement log on production cases, then the action for multi-model reconciliation lead - Hypothesis scorecard against multi-model disagreement log on production cases: supported / rejected / untestable - Owner and next date for multi-model reconciliation lead in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy - What changes procurement should fail a if a vendor that changed subprocessors without notice is later withdrawn