This is the record of an abcd-managed repository

abcdBetav0.16.2 · 2026-11-06

Development record

The brief's launch chapter's refusal-kinds table describes unfixed-finding as the consequential (major/critical) finding case only, while the guardrail list forty lines below now says it also fires for an open issue record that differs from HEAD (added by the drain lane for iss-2610072347238476, which left the table row alone because a peer's verb split edits nearby). The table and the list now disagree within one chapter.

issueresolvednitpickiss-2610101803326081

The brief's launch chapter's refusal-kinds table describes unfixed-finding as the consequential (major/critical) finding case only, while the guardrail list forty lines below now says it also fires for an open issue record that differs from HEAD (added by the drain lane for iss-2610072347238476, which left the table row alone because a peer's verb split edits nearby). The table and the list now disagree within one chapter.

Grounds

  • pursued: the table row, the guardrail list, commands/launch.md and Emit's three RefusalUnfixedFinding appends all describe the same two cases; a row that again names only one case, or Emit raising unfixed-finding for a case the row does not name, would show it wrong, and TestBriefRefusalKindsRowForUnfixedFindingNamesBothCases fails on the first.

Frontmatter

idiss-2610101803326081
typeissue
lifecycleresolved
severitynitpick

mentions2