The intent chapter says only the reading-ingest verb writes origin contributed-by-reading; itd-2609020625400169 has the capture promote path stamp it on the draft it mints.

The intent chapter says only the reading-ingest verb writes origin contributed-by-reading; itd-2609020625400169 has the capture promote path stamp it on the draft it mints.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:366 — "contributed-by-reading < rdg-N>/< rdi-N> (the reading-ingest verb only)"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609020625400169-an-intent-that-a-reading-occasioned-says.md:33 — "stamps origin: contributed-by-reading <rdg-N>/<rdi-N> on the draft it mints"

05-intent's frontmatter template annotates the origin value contributed-by-reading < rdg-N>/< rdi-N> as written by the reading-ingest verb only. itd-2609020625400169 says the promote path for an accepted reading item stamps that value on the intent draft it mints, and that the stamp primitive accepts the value only from a caller supplying the run and item pair. The two documents name different verbs as the sole writer of the same intent field.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 520.