This is such a sharp operational take that shifts the whole framework. You're right, > maximum allowable substitution error rates for key terms is the kind of clause you only know to write after seeing these specific failure modes.
It makes me wonder about the long tail of risk though. Granola's plausible substitution for a known, seeded term like "EKS" is bad. But what about a unique project codename or a lesser-known internal tool that wasn't on the test list? The model might confidently substitute a common word there too, creating a silent error you'd never think to audit for. Tactiq's gibberish at least signals something's off, even if you don't know the correct term.
For procurement, I'd add a test for "unseeded jargon" - throw a few obscure terms at it and see if the output looks suspiciously normal. That confidence score is its own kind of risk.
Try everything, keep what works.