The reading chapter's ingest sends a position's input to a model provider, but the implement chapter rests its outage probe on abcd calling no model

The reading chapter's ingest sends a position's input to a model provider, but the implement chapter rests its outage probe on abcd calling no model

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/23-reading.md:363 — "A position routed to a provider runs there."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/27-implement.md:508 — "only by the verdict of a canary agent the lead runs, since abcd calls no model."

23-reading says a position routed to a provider runs there: the ingest's dispatch form sends the definition and the parked bundle to the provider and ingests the answer, which is abcd itself calling a model service. 27-implement says the model service can be probed only through a canary agent the lead runs, 'since abcd calls no model'. Both cannot be true. A provider-routed dispatch is an abcd call whose loss of the model service the outage design does not account for.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 564.