Reflect's plain-Terminal interview treats a configured fallback host as a working route; the build chapter says the fallback-host path still waits on a decision.

Reflect's plain-Terminal interview treats a configured fallback host as a working route; the build chapter says the fallback-host path still waits on a decision.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/09-reflect.md:143 — "when no route of the person's reaches a runner: the role's route is the host, no fallback host is set"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/34-build.md:538 — "the no-host path, where a host-routed role goes to the machine's runner.fallback_host, is the process driver's reversal of the host-delegated boundary, and waits on the ADR decision 6 of the intent owes"

09-reflect's interview refuses only when the role's route is the host and no fallback host is set. So a host-routed role with a fallback host configured runs there, with no host session. 34-build describes exactly that no-host path, a host-routed role going to the machine's runner.fallback_host, as a reversal of the host-delegated design that waits on an ADR decision the runner intent still owes. One page relies on the path as shipped; the other says it has not been decided.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 414.