The brief README reads spc-N references throughout the brief as predecessor-store ids; 04-naming says an unqualified spc-N resolves in the live store and a predecessor id must be marked as such.

The brief README reads spc-N references throughout the brief as predecessor-store ids; 04-naming says an unqualified spc-N resolves in the live store and a predecessor id must be marked as such.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/02-constraints/04-naming.md:163 — "an unqualified spc-2 or spc-3 resolves in the live store to a spec about something else entirely"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/README.md:8 — "the predecessor implementation's spec store, carried as design input"

The brief README's provenance note says spc-N references throughout the brief trace 'the predecessor implementation's spec store, carried as design input', never delivery claims. 04-naming's two-namespace rule marks a predecessor id '(predecessor store)' and warns that the id spaces overlap, so 'an unqualified spc-2 or spc-3 resolves in the live store to a spec about something else entirely'; 04-naming itself cites live specs such as spc-2610030911534855 unqualified. A reader applying the README's rule resolves every unqualified id in the wrong store.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 128.