everything under .abcd/work/ sits under no lint root: record-lint's root is .abcd/development and docs-lint's roots are docs and README.md, so the issue ledger, the reviews charter, rulesets/, DECISIONS.md, the .abcd root config files, the plugin trees, and every root prose file except README.md are gated by nothing — which means structural fixes in those areas can silently regress. iss-279 and iss-2608230752354928 capture two slices (docs-lint roots; relative links under work/); this record is the umbrella: decide the lint-root coverage for the working tier and root prose, or record why they stay ungated.

everything under .abcd/work/ sits under no lint root: record-lint's root is .abcd/development and docs-lint's roots are docs and README.md, so the issue ledger, the reviews charter, rulesets/, DECISIONS.md, the .abcd root config files, the plugin trees, and every root prose file except README.md are gated by nothing — which means structural fixes in those areas can silently regress. iss-279 and iss-2608230752354928 capture two slices (docs-lint roots; relative links under work/); this record is the umbrella: decide the lint-root coverage for the working tier and root prose, or record why they stay ungated.

Remedy grounds (2026-09-29)

• Both rules already take .abcd/work through extra_roots, and the lint chapter says an entry may be one file, so extending coverage is configuration plus the findings it surfaces rather than new code.
• No outside-practice check: the question is this repository's own gate coverage.
• Rejected: widening docs-lint's roots to the root prose, whose host-agnostic rules are written for user-facing docs and would need escapes across the credit file and the host bridge files.