A review verb for proposed brief edits: deduced changes recorded, asked or settled, then applied

A review verb for proposed brief edits: deduced changes recorded, asked or settled, then applied

What is missing

After a vision-refinement interview in a managed repository, the facilitator deduced 15 brief edits from the owner's answers (for example: an out-of-scope row removed because the owner put 3D in scope; a renderer choice reopened). abcd has no record for a proposed brief edit and no verb to review one:

• The brief's truth rule admits only decided content, so the drafts cannot sit in the brief.
• The planning interview reviews one intent, not brief edits; its Terminal form needs a routed runner.
• intent consistency finds contradictions after the fact; it does not carry a proposed change to a decision.

So the drafts lived in a hand-kept lab file, and the owner asked how abcd would best let them review it: in the session as an interview, or in their own editor.

What the verb would do

1. Record each proposed edit: the brief section, its current text, the proposed text, and the decision or answer it rests on.
2. Sort them: an edit that only restates a decision the owner already made is settled by the record and gets a decision line, not a question (the GRILL rule on one defensible answer). An edit with two defensible readings is owed a question.
3. Ask the owed ones under the asking rules, as tabs.
4. Open prose items in the person's editor (VISUAL or EDITOR), because a press release or framing the product thinker owns is theirs to write, not to approve; then check the returned text against the recorded tenets and flag conflicts.
5. Apply accepted edits to the brief with a dated trail, and run the consistency pass on what changed.

Seen in practice

Of 9 decision-like edits, 7 were settled by tenets the owner had just confirmed, leaving 2 questions; the one prose item (the press release) went to the owner's editor. The split cut the review from three screens of tabs to two questions plus one editing pass.

Remedy the reporter proposes: Add a review verb (for example abcd review brief) that keeps proposed brief edits as records: section, current text, proposed text, the decision it rests on; it splits them into settled-by-record and owed-a-question, asks only the latter under the asking rules, opens prose items in the person's editor, and applies accepted edits with a dated trail.

Reported by a managed repository (root commit c372ff6b8fc387ffdf1acf7c51bffe469b70b2e0) through the abcd inbox as rpt-2610071611295053, a enhancement against abcd v0.13.1, surface brief, abcd intent consistency, GRILL asking rules, a new review verb.

Evidence:

• rpt-2610071611295053 (the report, kept in the inbox)
• lab-261002171217-c372ff6
• rpt-2610071608595198