Development record
Context keeps `intent ship` as a design target that drives a spec to completion; the scope page says closing the spec ships the intent and there is no separate ship command
Context keeps intent ship as a design target that drives a spec to completion; the scope page says closing the spec ships the intent and there is no separate ship command
A premise contradiction (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/brief/01-product/02-context.md:11— "shipdrives that spec to completion (or the full pipeline if from drafts/)" - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/01-product/04-scope.md:40— "closing the spec is what ships the intent, and there is no separate ship command."
The context page describes an intent ship sub-verb that drives the spec to completion, or the full pipeline from drafts/, and keeps it among the remaining design targets. Under the truth rule a design target is decided. The scope page says closing the spec is what ships the intent and there is no separate ship command. The record cannot both plan a ship command and rule one out.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 12.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262030322001 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | open |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2610262030322001-context-keeps-intent-ship-as-a-design.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions1
- iss-261026203115927702-context lists grill and ship as remaining intent design targets; the build sequence says there is no intent ship and no grill sub-verb, shipping running through spec close and grilling through the planning interview.