itd-42 ships its coherence tier as a capability of an existing `/abcd:intent grill`; the naming register says the verb is staged and no `intent grill` sub-verb is registered

itd-42 ships its coherence tier as a capability of an existing /abcd:intent grill; the naming register says the verb is staged and no intent grill sub-verb is registered

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-42-coherence-aware-grill.md:71 — "this is a capability of the existing /abcd:intent grill, not a sibling verb."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/02-constraints/04-naming.md:44 — "staged (itd-27), and no intent grill sub-verb is registered."

itd-42, on the shipped shelf, scopes itself as 'a capability of the existing /abcd:intent grill, not a sibling verb', which presupposes that the grill sub-verb exists. 04-naming says the opposite: /abcd:intent grill is staged (itd-27) and no intent grill sub-verb is registered. A shipped intent cannot extend a sub-verb that the register says does not exist.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 234.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The record says its press release and scope are read through the re-scope, and its fidelity audit lists the grill-verb wording as diverged; the CLI registers prepass and no grill.