Assess whether the control plane actually controls production traffic (4cb28d)

SITUATION After a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable', reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality is what post-deployment monitoring owner can touch in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy. AI Governance Layer will live with Policy or governance breach versus Model defect on this Audit and Vendor Terms file.

DECISION Post-deployment monitoring owner in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy must choose Policy or governance breach / Model defect / Dual failure / Hold for the missing fact using reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable'.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. A scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable' is noise around an already-controlled Audit and Vendor Terms process in a publisher needing provenance on generated copy, given reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality. 2. A scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable' is the event in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality that forces Policy or governance breach for post-deployment monitoring owner under AI Governance Layer. 3. Reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality shows a one-file miss after a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable', not a Audit and Vendor Terms program failure. 4. Reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality cannot decide the control plane actually yet after a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable'; hold is the only AI Governance Layer close a publisher needing provenance on generated copy can defend.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map the control-plane score in reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality to the policy gate post-deployment monitoring owner can enforce. 2. Name the override that would let the control plane actually proceed without a silent bypass. 3. Test whether a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable' changed routing, logging, or human-in-the-loop on the live agent path. 4. For this AI Governance Layer Audit and Vendor Terms file, read reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality against a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable' and write the one fact that would move the control plane actually 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 / Audit and Vendor Terms packet (reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable'). If reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality cannot force a AI Governance Layer label under Audit and Vendor Terms, stop. If reconciliation policy when two models split on materiality after a scorecard that rated 100% of outputs 'acceptable' cannot support Policy or governance breach versus Model defect on this AI Governance Layer Audit and Vendor Terms close, post-deployment monitoring owner must leave the classification unresolved and name the missing control or provenance fact.