The routing intent has the install render the proposal, a table with one row per agent, before consent; the ahoy page states the proposal in counts and names no agent.

The routing intent has the install render the proposal, a table with one row per agent, before consent; the ahoy page states the proposal in counts and names no agent.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/planned/itd-2609170822093401-the-oracle-choice-is-one-repo-wide-value.md:101 — "Rendering the proposal and writing it only on consent, at machine level"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/01-ahoy.md:765 — "the proposal said in counts (how many agents, how many at each tier, their fan-out bounds), naming no agent so the question fits"

itd-2609170822093401 defines the proposal as a table with one row per agent, and has the install render it and write it only on consent. The ahoy page's oracle-routing offer states the proposal in counts (agents, agents at each tier, fan-out bounds) and names no agent, so that the question fits. The person therefore consents to a table whose rows they are not shown. The two documents describe different things being consented to.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 358.