05-intent keeps a re-run owed on an ingested review that left a check owed, but 08-abcd says an ingested review leaves nothing to do.

05-intent keeps a re-run owed on an ingested review that left a check owed, but 08-abcd says an ingested review leaves nothing to do.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:327 — "An ingested review whose verdict left a check owed (ruling DQ1c) is listed under its own heading as reviewed and flagged"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/08-abcd.md:100 — "is reported unreviewed with its reason; an ingested one leaves nothing to do."

05-intent treats an ingested review whose verdict left a check owed (ruling DQ1c) as a separate case. It is listed as reviewed and flagged, it carries a remedy and a re-emit that rewrites its request for the re-run, and the same reader supplies the record dispatcher's next move for a shipped intent. 08-abcd's account of abcd <itd-N> for a shipped intent says an ingested review leaves nothing to do. That drops the re-run still owed after a NOT_MET or INCONCLUSIVE verdict.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 398.