MicrosoftI agree with aleace that it makes no sense to separate records management from information governance. The two scenarios as described don't support the common use of these terms internationally. If anything, your 'records management' could be described as 'Advanced information governance'.
I would also add that 'declaring a record' is a peculiarly American practice that means nothing in places like Australia.
You describe two distinct scenarios which I have mapped to the Service Descriptions (the link you included). Please let me know if these are not correct:
1. Info Governance (E3/E5) - 'Broad policies to catch everything and keep it simple'. According to the service description 'a single organization-wide or location-wide retention policy and/or manual retention labeling'. These are very useful and are closest to actual records management practices.
2. Records Management (E5) - 'Deeper dives into classifying content, enforcing particular process and workflows'. According to the service description, this means 'automatically applying retention labels or policies, starting the retention period of a retention label based on a custom event, triggering a manual disposition review at the end of the label's retention period, importing third-party data through native data connectors, discovering labeled content and monitoring labeling activity.' and 'automatically applying retention labels based on trainable classifiers'. I would also note that you need an E5 licence to keep a year's worth of audit logs (otherwise it's 90 days).
There may be some organisations that may want to make use of these options but I haven't seen a single use case that is based on the actual reality of managing records. If anything, it appears to be a way to cull records automatically - which you can do more accurately with standard retention policies.
Incidentally, 'trainable classifiers' are not new - they've been around for close to 20 years in products like Recommind (now part of Open Text).
