Clause 10 closes the loop on ownership. It covers the general allocation of responsibility, the documentation that proves it, and the implementation that makes it real, including the deletion mechanisms the framework relies on. Ownership is the difference between a framework that survives a staff change and one that dies with its author. The draft separates three layers because they fail in different ways. General responsibility fails when a role exists on an organisation chart but has no time, no delegation and no authority to stop a release. Documentation fails when the register, the matrix and the procedure exist but nobody can show which version was in force on the day a record should have gone. Implementation fails when the policy says deletion and the estate says otherwise, because the mechanism was never funded or the application owner never changed the job. A workable model names a framework owner, a cluster owner for each cluster and an operator for each deletion route. The framework owner keeps the vocabulary and the matrix. The cluster owner decides the purpose, the period and the exceptions. The operator runs the deletion and records it. The three roles can sit in one person in a small organisation, but the record should still show which hat was worn. The documentation layer is also where the organisation records the deletion mechanisms it relies on, because clause 10.3 is the point at which the mechanisms excluded from clause 1 come back as an implementation responsibility. A reviewer will ask for the last run, the last exception and the last change to the matrix. If the answer is a document rather than a person and a date, the clause has not been met.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.