2026-09-09 — itd-2609091034175565, the claim intent, is split into three records (maintainer, ruling after two adversarial reviews of the widened draft, design/feasibility and record-discipline). The reviews found the expensive parts unsound as drafted: a `claimed_by` stamp on an issue record is invisible to any peer on an older binary, because `issueschema.Known` is a closed allow-list whose reader refuses and skips a record carrying an unknown key and `record_schema` mirrors the refusal into the gate, and version skew is the steady state here (five plugin-cache vintages beside a `go run` checkout); the write-verb refusals fire after the fix is written, because `AGENTS.md` puts `capture resolve` in the same change as the fix; no staleness threshold is safe in both directions for two sessions in one worktree, since the worktree-exists and branch-merged tests are identical for both and a host may fire session-end on a context clear with the human still present; and the pushed half costs a merge-queue pass per claim, measured at fifteen to sixteen minutes on this repository's merge-group `ci` leg. Every collision on record is one of two claim-free shapes. The ruling: itd-2609091416295622 carries the read-only sibling-worktree ledger diff over `git worktree list --porcelain` (no claim, no lease, no hook, no threshold; the piece that ships soonest); itd-2609091416304128 carries `capture resolve` and `capture wontfix` refusing a record terminal at the local `origin/main` ref as last fetched, stating the ref's age and fetching nothing, with the same judgement rendered read-only on `abcd <record-id>`; itd-2609091034175565 keeps the claim, the lease and the refusals as a draft marked not ready, carrying the refusal-surface, liveness and pushed-price questions as open questions and the two-release stamp migration as a hard constraint. The existing record stays the claim so the `promoted_from` trail from iss-2609020716570699 — whose remedy is the claim and the pushed half — stays true rather than being retitled onto a listing the issue never proposed; the two new records reach the issue through `related_intents` on the issue and on themselves, and every relation the schema cannot type is stated in prose as a prose cross-reference (iss-2609091256264547). All three sit in `drafts/`; adoption is the interview's. Rejected: re-scoping the existing record to the listing, which keeps the trail mechanically and breaks it semantically; a fifth relation word for "split from", which is the vague form the decomposition principle forbids.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/decisions/dcn-2609090000000005-itd-2609091034175565-the-claim-intent-is.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions5

• iss-2609020716570699Nothing tells an agent that a record it is about to fix has been claimed or resolved by another session until the resolution gate refuses the push. In one night a peer session re-fixed two issues a paused branch also fixed, and two of its open PRs duplicate merged work. The claim signal that worked in every published multi-agent run is the repository itself: a claim written into the open record (claimed_by: account and harness, branch) and pushed alone through the queue before any fix starts, so a losing race is a push rejection; plus a duplicate-guard required check that fails a PR whose Resolves trailer names a record already resolved on origin/main; plus capture resolve refusing a record that is already terminal on the fetched origin/main. Folder membership is already the status signal, so the claim extends the one canonical primitive rather than adding a lock file that rots. Refines iss-2608220750029993.
• iss-2609091256264547The decomposition discipline requires a cross-record link to be typed with one of four relations, supersedes or reverses or duplicates or refines, and never a vague related. Only the first of those four exists. supersedes is schema-known through recordHandleFields and is carried by fifty-eight decision records and three others, while reverses, duplicates and refines appear in no schema and in no committed record anywhere in the tree: the field list a record may carry is related_adrs, related_intents, builds_on and blocked_by, and a record carrying a key outside the known set is dropped by the reader rather than reported, so writing one of the three missing words would make the record invisible to every surface that reads it. The consequence is that an author following the rule literally either writes a link the tooling silently discards or writes the relation in prose and calls it typed, and the corpus shows the second: records assert a typed link in a heading and carry no frontmatter edge, which reads as done to a human and is invisible to every graph walker. That is the shape enforcement-claims-are-facts refuses, a convention naming a mechanism that does not exist, and it is load-bearing here because the decomposition protocol is the documented gate until its automated rung ships. Fix candidates, none chosen: implement the three missing relations as known fields so the rule can be followed; or narrow the rule to the vocabulary the schema implements and say what an author does with a relation the four words cannot express; or record that prose is the sanctioned form for the three and stop calling them typed. Detector: a record asserting a typed relation in its body carries a frontmatter edge naming the same target, and a relation the schema cannot express is refused at write time rather than dropped in silence.
• itd-2609091034175565Before an agent starts on an item, it reserves it on the shared remote, and everyone who works on the project sees the reservation
• itd-2609091416295622A session sees the records its peers hold before it mints or fixes one
• itd-2609091416304128capture resolve refuses a record the default branch has already closed, judged by the last fetch