Accept Google previously-identified-CVEs contract wording - it is not what they really want, and their own language becomes scope leverage later

Situation

In the GDC contract thread with Kelly Hall and Bjorn, Peter accepted Google wording that limits CIQ obligations to a previously identified list of CVEs. He noted Google wants to control regression scope, but as worded they will not automatically get upstream changes, and because of embargoes many upstream changes are unlabeled CVE fixes. He chose to let Google learn that and ask for something different later, and said it will be leverage: future change requests can be answered as not in the previously identified list, per their own language.

Reasoning

Do not argue a customer out of wording that narrows CIQ obligations. A boundary drawn in the customer own words is harder to dispute later than a CIQ-drafted exclusion. Pushing back would reopen a redline on a contract CIQ needs signed. Peter saw the downside for Google and had already pitched the rebase path, so this is leaving the choice with them, not concealing it.

Additional Context

Second GDC draft just arrived; Google appetite is expanding with the Anthropic work.

Observed Evidence

They do not really want the second thing, but happy to have them learn that and ask for something different. So I am fine. Worded this way they will not automatically get upstream changes; because of embargoes lots of upstream changes ARE CVEs. Leverage for us later, per their own language.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis