The memory substrate says a failed coverage check refuses the next quotation block from that source; the library chapter says nothing enforces the budget at ingest.

The memory substrate says a failed coverage check refuses the next quotation block from that source; the library chapter says nothing enforces the budget at ingest.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/05-internals/07-memory.md:140 — "On fail: refuses next quotation block from that source until coverage drops via summarisation rewrite of existing pages."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/07-library.md:405 — "computed at lint time. Nothing enforces it at ingest."

07-memory says that when the cumulative coverage check fails, abcd 'refuses next quotation block from that source until coverage drops'. 07-library says the budget is computed at lint time and 'Nothing enforces it at ingest', and that the lint mutates no store state. With ingest unenforced and the lint write-free, nothing is left to make the refusal 07-memory describes.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 441.