This is the record of an abcd-managed repository

abcdBetav0.16.2 · 2026-11-06

Development record

The intent chapter's loop treats INCONCLUSIVE as fail-closed with no iteration; itd-50 rules that an undecided criterion fails the round and reopens the work as NOT_MET does.

issuewontfixmajoriss-2610262034335136

The intent chapter's loop treats INCONCLUSIVE as fail-closed with no iteration; itd-50 rules that an undecided criterion fails the round and reopens the work as NOT_MET does.

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

  • End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:592 — "no iterate, no summons, no replan; never flips to UNACHIEVABLE"
  • End B: .abcd/development/intents/planned/itd-50-loop-toward-acceptance.md:105 — "a criterion the audit could not decide fails the round exactly as a not-met one does"

05-intent's state-coverage table maps INCONCLUSIVE to no iterate, no summons and no replan, never flipping to UNACHIEVABLE, and states the loop trigger is NOT_MET only. itd-50's decision 5 (ruling DQ1a) says a criterion the audit could not decide fails the round exactly as a not-met one does, sending the lane back to a fresh implementer, and records that it supersedes the fail-closed reading. The two cannot both describe what the loop does on an undecided verdict.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 505.

Grounds

  • declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536) as a duplicate of iss-2610262033260091. Same End A (05-intent.md line 592, INCONCLUSIVE never iterates); End B is itd-50 decision 5 instead of 34-build.md, stating the same ruling.

Frontmatter

idiss-2610262034335136
typeissue
lifecyclewontfix
severitymajor

References1

mentions2