The assembler passes the shipped intents at the widening position, which the readings companion's widening object does not list

The assembler passes the shipped intents at the widening position, which the readings companion's widening object does not list

The readings companion (v4, section 5.2) gives the widening reading's object as "Brief current text including the construal section; brief/glossary/; intents/disciplines/ including the selection-criteria discipline; specs/; the shipped tree where one exists", and excludes intents/drafts/ and intents/planned/ under the rule that a reading never sees the material whose state it exists to change. The governing framework's W12 table gives the same object without the disciplines and specs. Neither lists intents/shipped/.

The include table in internal/core/reading/include.go carries the shipped intent projection with Positions: allPositions, so the widening position receives every shipped intent projected to its press release, acceptance criteria, scope conditions, mechanism and spec id. The committed cold preset happens not to select the intent-projection kind at widening, so the shipped cold run does not carry them, but the admission is the table's and a preset can only narrow it.

There is an argument either way. A shipped intent is a committed product of the framing, admissible under adr-55, and the widening reading's question is what the construal admits that is "not present in what has been committed to", for which the committed intents are the clearest statement of what has been committed to. Against that, both design documents chose not to list them, and the second assembler rule (a reading's object excludes what it exists to change) does not reach shipped intents, so the omission reads as deliberate rather than as an oversight the rule would have caught.

The table should match a ruled object. Either the widening row set drops intents/shipped/ to match the companion, or the companion's section 5.2 is amended to list it with the ground above, and the include table's row comment cites the ruling. Until one happens the manifest's exclusions and the definition's Object section describe two different readings.

Grounds

• pursued: we expect taking the row's positions from the two design documents, and asserting the withdrawal in the floor, to make the widening position's object what both documents state, because a reader can then check the refusal rather than infer it from a row's silence; a shipped intent reaching a widening bundle, or the entailment and detection positions losing them, would show it wrong