the grounds flag carries two incompatible grammars on one verb family with a floor on three routes and free text on the fourth

the grounds flag carries two incompatible grammars on one verb family with a floor on three routes and free text on the fourth

Found by the itd-179 fidelity audit.

--grounds now means two different things on one verb family:

• capture promote|resolve|wontfix and intent ready take <token>: <text> with a closed vocabulary and the substance floor.
• capture disposition takes disposition_grounds as FREE TEXT with no token and no floor.

So a caller who learns the grammar on one route is wrong on the next, and a record's grounds mean different things depending on which verb wrote them. The audit reached this while judging ac-1: capture promote <rdi-N> dispatches before requireGrounds is consulted, so that route satisfies the criterion by DELEGATING to the laxer artefact rather than by enforcing the stricter one.

Not a defect in either half on its own. The question it raises is whether one flag name should carry two contracts, and that is a design decision rather than a bug to fix.

Remedy grounds (2026-09-29)

• Why: ruling AL's options, each with its change; the split keeps one flag name to one meaning and routes the break through the breaking release already approved.
• Sources (consulted 2026-09-29): Command Line Interface Guidelines, 'Use the same flag names for the same things' and 'Warn before you make a non-additive change' (https://clig.dev/).
• Rejected: a rename with no alias, a silent break of a shipped verb.