Live 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.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2608221126066632-live-recurrence-2026-08-22-two.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions9

• adr-45Record ids are timestamp-numeric, capture-stable, and never allocated by looking at the maximum
• iss-2608210737260468The intent (itd) and spec (spc) families still mint via the legacy max+1 refs-union allocator; adr-45 ruling 3 schedules their adoption of the timestamp-numeric mint seam as configuration — a swap of the allocation call in the intent and spec stores onto the shared recordid seam, retiring their MaxAcrossRefs scans and mint warnings — after the captures family has run the scheme for a release cycle (itd-114 ac-6's Given clause). This is the tracker so the rollout's second family is not forgotten once that cycle completes
• iss-2608220150157512ADRs, 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
• 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-87A Finding That Comes Back After You Closed It Tells You Something, And abcd Stops Throwing It Away
• itd-144Every livery mark has a surface and earns it: the duckling, the lifeboat, and the two-by-two signal-flag icon are placed deliberately across abcd's surfaces instead of sitting as generated-but-unused assets. The lifeboat mark renders when disembark finishes packing a lifeboat and mirrors when embark unpacks one, so the direction of travel reads at a glance; the duckling appears as the mascot wherever the harness greets a human; the icon becomes the website and app icon. Settles the forge/web logo question itd-112 deferred as 'the existing logo stays for now'. Follows itd-133, which shipped the marks deliberately unwired, and consumes itd-112's colour ladder and emission discipline rather than minting its own.
• itd-145An adopted idea cannot ship uncredited: abcd enforces its own acknowledgement convention mechanically, so a record that cites an external source, standard, or tool without a matching ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS entry fails the record gate and names what is missing. 'Credit in the same change that lands it' stops depending on the author remembering. Seeded by a real miss in this repo: the maritime signal-flag standard the livery logo encodes and the NO_COLOR convention the colour ladder implements both shipped before their credit landed, and nothing caught it.
• itd-146abcd's help renders in labelled command groups, and the grouping is gated like every other surface claim
• 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