2026-07-27 (salvage): the four 2026-07-13/14 ideation-session entries above are appended out of chronological order — recovered from an unmerged ideation branch during branch cleanup, together with their research/plan docs; the /abcd:ideate seed from that session is re-recorded as itd-104 (its branch-local iss-93 capture id had collided with main's iss-93 and is retired unused).

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/decisions/dcn-2607270000000001-the-four-2026-07-13-14-ideation-session.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions2

• iss-93adr-35 leaves two paths by which disembark still writes into the source repo: the Pass-0 dev-sync stage (writes .abcd/work/reviews, .abcd/memory, .abcd/work/issues into the repo) and the backgrounded-execution checkpoint (.abcd/logbook/disembark/<ts>/_state.json). adr-35 promises disembark is read-only over the source and that a test hashes the tree before and after, so both must move out-of-tree (under <dest>, or under ~/.abcd/voyage/<source-root-sha>/) or be excluded from the disembark path entirely. adr-35 does not settle where they go — a design decision owed before the packer ships.
• itd-104**abcd gates a new idea before it becomes a record entry: research it against primary sources, grill it against the existing record, and let an independent adversary try to kill it.** A product thinker's exciting idea is cheapest to kill in its first hour — and most expensive to kill after it has minted intents, specs, and branches. `/abcd:ideate` runs the admission interview: SOTA research in which every load-bearing claim is checked against its primary source; a record grill — does the brief, an intent, an ADR, or a principle already cover, contradict, or supersede this?; and an independent adversarial review, evaluator outside the loop. The output is a verdict plus a recorded decision with rejected alternatives; only a surviving idea graduates to a draft intent. The protocol is already proven by hand: three ideas entered it on 2026-07-14 — two were killed (one by a measured null result its premise could not survive, one by three independently fatal methodological defects) and one was reframed by adversarial review before a line was built. The manual run also named the two load-bearing steps automation must keep: check the record first (one idea was already written and superseded), and open the primary (three secondary-source claims were falsified, one of them fabricated by tool extraction). "The ideas I'm proudest of are the ones abcd killed in an afternoon," said Iris, a product thinker. "Each one left a recorded reason behind, so I never talk myself back into them six months later."