Two circles, honestly drawn. The overlap is real; so is everything outside it.
■ JARVIS only — depth: accountability + persistence of one agent■ shared — both are agent substrates■ OpenClaw only — breadth: channels + multi-agent reach
The integration boundary (the honest part). The overlap is where they compose: OpenClaw's ACP path can spawn a Claude Code session, and JARVIS rides on Claude Code, so JARVIS-on-ACP runs today in principle. But the catch is in the geometry: that only governs the one ACP sub-session, not OpenClaw's own native turns. JARVIS's whole thesis is governing the entire agent. To wrap the whole system, the hook-points and attestation have to live in the harness's own turn-executor — which means a fork, not a passenger seat. Compose to prove it cheap; fork when governing-the-whole becomes the ceiling.