Development record
Reflect lists planned intents whose target_release names the release; the cut has already rewritten every such target to next
Reflect lists planned intents whose target_release names the release; the cut has already rewritten every such target to next
A sequencing impossibility (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/09-reflect.md:59— "The planned intents whosetarget_releasenames the release and which did not ship" - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/04-launch.md:790— "The ingest moves every target the cut passes (next, or a tag at or below the derived version) tonext"
Reflect's seed lists the planned intents whose target_release names the released tag and which did not ship, warns about them, and its write refuses until they are confirmed. Launch's ingest moves every target the cut passes, a tag at or below the derived version, to next in the same write that rolls the changelog. By the time a tag exists for reflect to take, no planned intent's target names it, so the list is empty by construction and the refusal can never fire.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 266.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262032250865 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | open |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2610262032250865-reflect-lists-planned-intents-whose.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions2
- iss-2610262035030115The retrospective seed lists planned intents whose target_release names the cut release; itd-2609212103572513's cut has already moved every such target to next.
- iss-2611060809220159`04-surfaces/09-reflect.md:67` says the seed lists the planned intents whose `target_release` names the release and which did not ship. `unshippedTargets` (`internal/core/reflect/seed.go:200`) also adds any still-planned intent named in a target-move note of the release's changelog section (`changelog.IsTargetMoveNote`), whatever its `target_release` says, and those intents enter the warning and the `unshipped_targets` refusal. The chapter does not name this second source, which is the answer the ruling on iss-2610262032250865 chose.