Two different "no" reasons. Module 4 taught you to ask whether a step is AI-appropriate, human-retained, or collaborative — a question about task fit. Governance asks a different question: even if a step is a great fit for delegation, is this the right data, context, and stakes to bring to Claude at all? A task can clear the Module 4 bar and still fail the governance bar.
These get conflated in practice, and that's exactly where the judgment gap shows up. "Claude can definitely draft this" (task-fit yes) is not the same claim as "this is fine to hand to Claude" (governance yes) — a use case can fail either check independently.
Recognize the pattern, not just the rule. The module's own framing example is instructive: governance failures usually aren't "Claude did something wrong." They're "someone brought the wrong input, or granted more access than the task needed, without stopping to check first." That's a human decision point, upstream of anything Claude does.