itd-78, still a draft, promises the `blocked_by` and `builds_on` edges; the intent chapter already ships them through the edge sub-verb with the same definitions.

itd-78, still a draft, promises the blocked_by and builds_on edges; the intent chapter already ships them through the edge sub-verb with the same definitions.

A scope leakage (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-78-intent-dependency-graph.md:17 — "its edges — blocked_by (cannot ship before) and builds_on (cheaper or better if the other exists first)"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:339 — "Adds and removes the record's dependency edges, blocked_by (cannot ship before) and builds_on (cheaper or better if the other exists first)"

itd-78 defines an intent's edges as blocked_by (cannot ship before) and builds_on (cheaper or better if the other exists first). 05-intent.md's shipped edge sub-verb writes exactly those two edges, in the same words, and the chapter lints them with stale_edge and edge_cycle. So both documents claim the edge half, and the draft still reads as if that half were undelivered.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 491.