Meta's truth rule bans aspirational maybes from the brief; the press release's open questions carry one outside the registered question homes

Meta's truth rule bans aspirational maybes from the brief; the press release's open questions carry one outside the registered question homes

A premise contradiction (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/00-meta.md:9 — "the brief records no proposals, no alternatives still under consideration, no aspirational maybes."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/01-product/01-press-release.md:51 — "A future intent (likely paired with itd-15 self-dogfooded SOTA audit) may quantify it."

00-meta says the brief records no proposals and no aspirational maybes, and keeps unsettled questions in 03-open-questions.md or in inline Open question (adr-35) notes. The press release carries its own Open Questions section, which neither registers, and it ends on a maybe about a future intent. Under the truth rule that passage has no legitimate home.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 27.