itd-166 says a field a route cannot show is recorded as unpinned or self-reported, never left out; the reading chapter's route receipt leaves model_reported empty when the payload names no model

itd-166 says a field a route cannot show is recorded as unpinned or self-reported, never left out; the reading chapter's route receipt leaves model_reported empty when the payload names no model

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-166-each-run-should-record-the-model.md:18 — "Whatever the route cannot show is written down as unpinned or self-reported, never left out and never guessed."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/23-reading.md:355 — "model_reported, the last read from the payload's own model field (a reading's instrument.model) and empty when the payload names none"

itd-166 extends the override's route receipt so that every model call records the served side, with a missing field written down under a stated reason and never omitted. 23-reading describes the ingest's route receipt as carrying model_reported read from the payload and empty when the payload names none, with no reason recorded. An empty field is what itd-166 says the receipt never holds.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 650.