itd-199 ships a scope operand at invocation that it says was 'carried into brief invariant 15'; invariant 15 says that operand is superseded and the operands are position and target only.

itd-199 ships a scope operand at invocation that it says was 'carried into brief invariant 15'; invariant 15 says that operand is superseded and the operands are position and target only.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-199-a-reading-is-about-something-narrower.md:19 — "A scope may be widened or narrowed at invocation while calibrating"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/02-constraints/03-invariants.md:167 — "which supersedes adr-58's scope operand and restores the 2026-08-28 M8 ruling"

itd-199 adds a third operand (a record id, a family or a preset name), says 'A scope may be widened or narrowed at invocation while calibrating', records the ruling as adr-58 and says it was carried into invariant 15; it also has the comparative position refuse because no channel exists. Invariant 15 says the operands are a position and a target state and nothing else, under an ADR 'which supersedes adr-58's scope operand and restores the 2026-08-28 M8 ruling', and has the comparative position derive its widening run from the record. The shipped intent still describes an operand as live that the invariant records as withdrawn.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 192.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The ADR is the later record naming adr-58; the shipped intent is not rewritten.