The docs chapter's lint walks its roots and prunes only git-ignored untracked paths; the lint contract says the tree gates read git-tracked bytes.

The docs chapter's lint walks its roots and prunes only git-ignored untracked paths; the lint contract says the tree gates read git-tracked bytes.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/10-docs.md:202 — "the lint asks git once per root which untracked paths it ignores and reads none of them"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/05-internals/06-lint.md:48 — "The two tree gates read git-tracked bytes through internal/core/lint"

10-docs says the walk asks git which untracked paths it ignores and skips only those. A committed file is never pruned, and outside a repository nothing is pruned, so untracked files that are not ignored are read, and so is a tree with no git at all. 06-lint says the two tree gates read git-tracked bytes. If only tracked bytes were read, there would be no ignored untracked path to prune and nothing to read outside a repository. The two describe different input sets.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 577.