Field-by-field comparison against Maxilo up to GUARDAR PRACTICA - client answered 'es igual en todo', which starts the work

CLIENT ANSWERED consulta 3, "Paridad con Maxilo: es igual en todo?": "es igual en todo." TREAT THIS AS A SPECIFICATION, NOT AS A CLOSED QUESTION. The consultas document said the field-by-field comparison "arranca con tu respuesta", and the answer has now arrived - so this is the moment the work STARTS, not the moment it is finished. "Es igual en todo" is a claim about two codebases we can both read, which makes it verifiable rather than a matter of client opinion, and the useful output is the list of places where it is NOT true. SCOPE, as recorded when the reference was chosen: Maxilo is the reference for modules 1 and 2 and for the rest of the form up to GUARDAR PRACTICA. Compare field by field over that surface and produce the exceptions list. TWO OTHER OPEN ITEMS HINGE ON THE SAME READ, so do it once. TERRA-140 needs Maxilo's participant model - the client says "como hacemos en las de cirugia" about naming the ayudante, so Maxilo already records a team and that shape is the reference. TERRA-139 needs to know whether Maxilo's Informes carry an alumno filter for docentes. Both are answered by reading Maxilo, and reading it three times is waste. EXPECT THE ANSWER TO BE WRONG IN PLACES AND DO NOT SILENTLY CONFORM TO IT. He answered in one line about a form he has not loaded a practica into - the self-test table came back with row 6 unverified for exactly that reason. Where Implantologia differs deliberately, the difference is the finding; where it differs by accident, that is the defect. Report both rather than porting Maxilo over terra to make the sentence true.