Development record
itd-104 says abcd gates an idea and only a survivor graduates to a draft intent; the intent chapter calls ideate optional beside a create that drafts any quoted text.
itd-104 says abcd gates an idea and only a survivor graduates to a draft intent; the intent chapter calls ideate optional beside a create that drafts any quoted text.
A premise contradiction (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-104-abcd-gates-a-new-idea-before-it-becomes.md:17— "and only a surviving idea graduates to a draft intent" - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/05-intent.md:317— "abcd ideateruns the optional admission gauntlet and records the verdict either way"
itd-104 promises that abcd gates a new idea before it can mint a single record and that only a surviving idea graduates to a draft intent. 05-intent's bare status calls abcd ideate the optional admission gauntlet, and its canonical create mints a draft intent from any leading quoted text with no admission step. Under the chapter a draft intent can exist that never met the gate, which the intent says cannot happen.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 522.
Grounds
- declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The shipped intent's later sections settle that capture and intent create need no ideate step, and its audit (ac-1, MET) cites the test that ideate is a pointer and not a gate.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262034468406 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | wontfix |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/wontfix/iss-2610262034468406-itd-104-says-abcd-gates-an-idea-and-only.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References1
- itd-104**abcd gates a new idea before it becomes a record entry: research it against primary sources, grill it against the existing record, and let an independent adversary try to kill it.** A product thinker's exciting idea is cheapest to kill in its first hour — and most expensive to kill after it has minted intents, specs, and branches. `/abcd:ideate` runs the admission interview: SOTA research in which every load-bearing claim is checked against its primary source; a record grill — does the brief, an intent, an ADR, or a principle already cover, contradict, or supersede this?; and an independent adversarial review, evaluator outside the loop. The output is a verdict plus a recorded decision with rejected alternatives; only a surviving idea graduates to a draft intent. The protocol is already proven by hand: three ideas entered it on 2026-07-14 — two were killed (one by a measured null result its premise could not survive, one by three independently fatal methodological defects) and one was reframed by adversarial review before a line was built. The manual run also named the two load-bearing steps automation must keep: check the record first (one idea was already written and superseded), and open the primary (three secondary-source claims were falsified, one of them fabricated by tool extraction). "The ideas I'm proudest of are the ones abcd killed in an afternoon," said Iris, a product thinker. "Each one left a recorded reason behind, so I never talk myself back into them six months later."related
mentions1
- 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.