ADRs, intents and specs still mint sequential ids (adr-NNNN, itd-N, spc-N), so two parallel branches minting in the same family produce add/add collisions on the same id — the exact mechanism adr-45 removed for issue captures, whose timestamp-numeric ids produced zero conflicts across twelve same-day captures on 2026-08-22 while the sequential families carry the standing risk. adr-45 rollout note 3 already names the path: one allocator, per-family adoption as configuration. Extending timestamp minting to the remaining families closes the class

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/issues/wontfix/iss-2608220150157512-sequential-id-families-still-carry-the.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions4

• adr-45Record ids are timestamp-numeric, capture-stable, and never allocated by looking at the maximum
• iss-2608221126066632Live recurrence, 2026-08-22: two concurrent sessions in two current checkouts each minted itd-144 and itd-145 in the same window — four records, two ids — resolved by hand-renumbering one side to itd-146/147. This is the second, undocumented path into the sequential-id collision recorded as iss-2608220150157512, which describes the stale-view path adr-45 already anticipated. Staleness was NOT the cause here: one session fast-forwarded 46 commits immediately before minting and still collided. The structural fact is that intents and specs mint max+1 (nextIntentID) while withIntentMintLock in internal/core/intent/create.go is advisory and scoped to a single checkout, so it cannot see a sibling worktree; two current checkouts therefore allocate the same id by construction. The durable fix is the timestamp mint adoption recorded as iss-2608210737260468. Recorded deliberately because capture has no add-evidence path and itd-87 (recurrence escalation) is unbuilt, so this evidence would otherwise exist only in two session transcripts.
• iss-2608230943533581itd-33's revisit triggers have fired and the coordination question owes a SOTA sweep that no record currently asks for. On 2026-08-23 several sessions ran in parallel in this repo and spent real effort coordinating rather than working: three of them landed writes in the wrong checkout when a shell cwd silently reverted from a per-agent worktree to the shared tree, and what stood between that and a bad commit was the AGENTS.md convention that a diff you did not make is a peer's work, not any mechanical property of the setup. That is itd-33's fifth revisit trigger — two consecutive successful multi-agent runs, after which the absence of coordination becomes the next bottleneck — and the intent asks in terms for exactly this texture to be recorded in the ledger so its design proceeds against real evidence rather than guesses. The accumulated evidence is now iss-213 (2026-08-11, a shared worktree and a false-green preflight spanning branch switches), iss-2608220750029992 (two sessions in one checkout, a branch switch unstaging a peer's index), iss-2608220750029993 (the session-presence lease, the armed-detector rung of the AGENTS.md conventions), iss-2608230847432285 (per-agent worktrees do not isolate a session whose cwd reverts), and the parallel-mint collisions iss-2608220150157512 and iss-2608221126066632. The gap this capture exists to close is the research one. .abcd/development/research/notes/ holds sixteen SOTA notes and not one covers multi-agent orchestration or coordination; itd-15 audits agent prompts against their research baselines, which is a different question. itd-33's own narrowing pass dropped LangGraph, CrewAI and AutoGen from its References when it cut file-level claims and substrate selection — right for that scope, but it leaves no record anywhere that a state-of-the-art sweep is owed on the topic at all, so without this entry the ask exists only in one session's transcript. The sweep should run under the protocol in .abcd/development/research/notes/2026-08-22-sota-research-protocol.md and cover at minimum what coordination substrates the field actually uses for same-machine multi-agent work on one repository, whether a claim-and-yield contract of itd-33's shape is state of the art or a local invention, how other systems make a session's tree unambiguous rather than remembered, and what the evidence says about coordination overhead against parallel throughput — the cost today's sessions paid in full. Promoting itd-33 out of drafts/ is a maintainer decision and is deliberately not taken here.
• itd-148Every change starts in its own worktree in abcd's store: the primary checkout is a read-only surface, and abcd blocks mutations there for every session but a declared coordinator