The naming register says the refresh backstop forces a full re-inject regardless of dedup, but the configuration chapter says a domain still in force is never re-injected unchanged within a session

The naming register says the refresh backstop forces a full re-inject regardless of dedup, but the configuration chapter says a domain still in force is never re-injected unchanged within a session

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/02-constraints/04-naming.md:208 — "Every N prompts, the prompt-router hook forces a full re-inject regardless of dedup signature match (compaction recovery)."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/05-internals/03-configuration.md:1039 — "a domain that stays in force is still never re-injected unchanged within a session"

The naming register defines rules.force_refresh_every_n as forcing a full re-inject every N prompts regardless of the dedup signature match, as compaction recovery. The configuration chapter says compaction recovery is event-driven, on SessionStart and PreCompact, and that the counter only re-injects always-relevant domains. It also says a domain that stays in force is never re-injected unchanged within a session. A full re-inject every N prompts and no unchanged re-inject within a session cannot both hold.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 95.