itd-2609020625400169 has the reading-item promote link mode write promoted_from and promoted_to; the capture chapter calls those retired names that no reader tolerates.

itd-2609020625400169 has the reading-item promote link mode write promoted_from and promoted_to; the capture chapter calls those retired names that no reader tolerates.

A terminology drift (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609020625400169-an-intent-that-a-reading-occasioned-says.md:33 — "it writes promoted_from (historical) and promoted_to and leaves the draft's origin untouched"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/06-capture.md:204 — "No reader tolerates the retired names: a record still carrying one is refused and skipped by the ledger reader"

The intent says the reading-item promote path, linking an existing draft, writes promoted_from (marked historical) and promoted_to, and that the lint checks the pair both ways. 06-capture states that promoted_to on a ledger record and promoted_from on an intent are the promote join's retired back-links, rewritten by migration into related_intents and related_issues, and that a record still carrying one is refused and skipped by the ledger reader. The join is named with keys one document has the verb write and the other has the reader refuse.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 521.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The later decision names the retirement.