The consistency ingest and the reading ingest copy host-delegated prose into lint-bound records with no prose-citation check: capture.IngestConsistency files each finding's summary, quotes and explanation as an issue record, and the reading ingest writes reading items into the rdi store, and both stores are read by record-lint's prose_citation_resolves, so a finding or item citing a record id that names no record is written and then refuses the whole tree. The verdict ingest holds its rendered block to the gate before writing (intent.SetProseCitationGate over lint.UnresolvedProseCitationsInRecord, iss-2609231036448320); these two writers take no such check. capture cannot import core/lint (lint's tests import capture), so the fix is the same front-door seam, asked over the text each writer renders.

Frontmatter

.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2609261835118276-the-consistency-ingest-and-the-reading.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

mentions2

• dcn-26092600000000052026-09-26 — The reading ingest's prose-citation refusal departs from "every refusal past the identity point is recorded" (the rule `refuse()` in internal/core/reading/ingest.go enforces, from iss-2608311518250688): it is returned unrecorded, because a recorded refusal gives the run an outcome and `refuseARerun` would then refuse the same run re-worded, where the run left parked is ingested again once its prose describes the record rather than citing a missing id — the stance the verdict ingest takes. It keeps the rest of the refusal contract: it rolls back this run id's own half-landed records and stage as `refuse()` does, and runs no sweep of other runs' orphans. `04-surfaces/23-reading.md` states it (implementer of lane fix2-drainL, autonomous run A, on review-drainL's design point for iss-2609261835118276).
• iss-2609231036448320abcd intent audit ingest copies the verifier's rationale prose verbatim into the shipped intent's Audit Notes, and that record is lint-bound: a rationale that names a test's illustrative id (an auditor citing TestCheckRefusesADanglingSpecTarget wrote the spec id the fixture dangles to) makes record-lint refuse the whole tree with a prose_citation_resolves BLOCKER on the ingested line, and the verdict schema offers no way to carry the '<!-- record-lint: illustrative -->' marker the rule asks for. The ingest validates the verdict against the rubric but not against the record gates the record it writes must pass, so a valid verdict can produce an uncommittable record; the auditor's only remedy is to re-word and re-ingest. Either the ingest should run the prose-citation check over the rendered block and refuse the verdict with the offending id named, or the verdict shape should let a rationale mark an id as illustrative