The mental model says disciplines use Given-When-Then under ## Rule; the intent chapter says nine of sixteen use a different idiom with no acceptance section

The mental model says disciplines use Given-When-Then under ## Rule; the intent chapter says nine of sixteen use a different idiom with no acceptance section

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/01-product/03-mental-model.md:85 — "Discipline-kind intents skip the press release but use the same Given-When-Then format under a ## Rule heading"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:154 — "The nine written since (itd-190 onwards) head the rule ## The rule and carry ## The gate, ## Fit and ## Staging in place of the scope, acceptance and reference sections"

03-mental-model states discipline-kind intents use the same Given-When-Then format under a ## Rule heading, while 05-intent says the nine disciplines written since itd-190 head the rule ## The rule and carry ## The gate, ## Fit and ## Staging in place of the acceptance section. Most disciplines in the tree do not take the format the mental model asserts.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 38.