Development record
The glossary now names every sense of the record's colliding terms (iss-2609012245352480), but the site export reads no glossary: internal/core/site carries no reference to it, so a rendered page shows 'phase', 'plan' or 'surface' as plain words and a reader on the site cannot reach the entry that disambiguates them. The record's ask was that the site links terms to the glossary; that half is Go work and stays open here. Directions, none adopted: the site renderer wraps the first occurrence of each glossary term on a page in a link to its entry; or every rendered page carries a glossary sidebar listing the terms it uses; or the glossary is exported as its own page set and chapters link by hand.
The glossary now names every sense of the record's colliding terms (iss-2609012245352480), but the site export reads no glossary: internal/core/site carries no reference to it, so a rendered page shows 'phase', 'plan' or 'surface' as plain words and a reader on the site cannot reach the entry that disambiguates them. The record's ask was that the site links terms to the glossary; that half is Go work and stays open here. Directions, none adopted: the site renderer wraps the first occurrence of each glossary term on a page in a link to its entry; or every rendered page carries a glossary sidebar listing the terms it uses; or the glossary is exported as its own page set and chapters link by hand.
Grounds
- pursued: we expect a reader who meets 'phase', 'plan' or 'surface' on a rendered page to reach the entry that fixes which sense is meant without leaving the site; it is wrong if the links are so dense the prose is unreadable, if one enters a code span, heading or existing link, or if a repository keeping no glossary is refused a build.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2609020922150364 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2609020922150364-the-site-export-does-not-link-terms-to.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions1
- iss-2609012245352480The record uses several of its own words in more than one sense, and a product thinker cannot tell them apart from the brief alone. 'Phase' names a roadmap phase (an ordered stretch of work ending in a milestone, phases/phase-N-slug.md) and also the brief's plumbing phases that a roadmap phase bundles (phases/README.md, 'which intents and which brief plumbing-phases this phase bundles'); tonight two different documents both claimed the number 7 and two more the number 8. 'Plan' names the intent verb (abcd intent plan, the maintainer's sign-off that mints a spec) and also the roadmap as a build plan, and a session's own plan. 'Roadmap' holds phases and rfcs but the dashboard reads the spec store. 'Record' means the whole development record and also one file in a family. 'Surface' means a verb's front door and also the brief's surface chapters. 'Closed loop', 'ledger', 'construal' and 'reading position' appear with no first-use definition outside the chapter that coins them. Ask: one glossary entry per term in the brief's glossary (or a glossary chapter if none exists), each with the senses it carries and the one spelling used for each sense, referenced from phases/README.md and the intent surface page; the site export links terms to it. Surfaced at the 2026-09-01 interview when the maintainer could not follow questions that used these words unexplained.