Development record
itd-1 says plan's acceptance-criteria refusal is a record-lint hard block; the intent surface says it is the intent package's own check, not internal/core/lint
itd-1 says plan's acceptance-criteria refusal is a record-lint hard block; the intent surface says it is the intent package's own check, not internal/core/lint
A premise contradiction (severity major) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/disciplines/itd-1-acceptance-gates.md:17— "/abcd:intent planrefuses to promote an intent without it (hard block via the record lint,internal/core/lint)." - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:198— "Refuses to promote if## Acceptance Criteriais missing/malformed (the intent package's own hasAcceptanceCriteria check, not internal/core/lint)"
itd-1 places the refusal to promote an intent without acceptance criteria in the record lint (internal/core/lint). The intent surface's lifecycle says the plan step's refusal is the intent package's own hasAcceptanceCriteria check and explicitly not internal/core/lint. Both cannot say where the gate lives: a reader trusting itd-1 expects the record lint to hold committed intents to the section, which the intent surface says no record-lint rule does.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 455.
Deferral 2026-10-27
Deferred past v0.15.1: Deferred by the product thinker on 2026-10-27 (dcn-2610271112330536): the brief's single-home rewrite (dcn-2610271112339516, dcn-2610271112330235) rewrites or removes most of the passages this record quotes.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262033567089 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | open |
| severity | major |
.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2610262033567089-itd-1-says-plan-s-acceptance-criteria.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References1
- itd-1Every Intent Has Acceptance Criteria; Every Audit Verifies Themrelated
mentions3
- dcn-26102711123302352026-10-27 — The product thinker ruled on 2026-10-27 that the design brief shows the target design, in the present tense, with a status tag where a part is built, rather than the shipped state. With the ruling that behaviour lives in the command pages, the brief holds the product as aimed for and why, and the command pages hold what abcd does today. This reverses itd-147's currency rule, so a superseding ADR is owed, and the brief's checks are rebuilt around the status overlay.
- dcn-26102711123305362026-10-27 — The product thinker accepted on 2026-10-27 the triage of the 1301 records the 2026-10-26 consistency pass filed. The duplicates, the records a later record already settles, the ones that are no contradiction and the one already fixed are closed with each reader's reason. Every other record gets its fix as its remedy, the rulings' accepted answers included, so a drain can take it. The 45 major records left open are deferred past v0.15.1, because the brief's single-home rewrite rewrites or removes most of the passages they quote. The person ruled the major rulings one at a time; the minor rulings take their recommended answers.
- dcn-26102711123395162026-10-27 — The product thinker ruled on 2026-10-27 that each abcd command's behaviour is written once, in its command page, which agents follow when they run it. The brief's chapter for the command keeps why the command exists, its trade-offs and why it refuses what it does, with its sub-verb table and generated appendix, and points to the command page for behaviour. The documentation-fidelity check moves to the command pages. This reverses the behaviour half of adr-2609231028044006 and invariant 18, so a superseding ADR is owed.