Development record
itd-104 says an idea is gated before it can mint any record; the ideate chapter says ideate is optional, never a gate, and required by no other verb
itd-104 says an idea is gated before it can mint any record; the ideate chapter says ideate is optional, never a gate, and required by no other verb
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— "abcd gates a new idea before it can mint a single record" - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/18-ideate.md:13— "No other verb requires it, nothing warns when it is skipped"
itd-104's press release makes the gauntlet a precondition: an idea is gated before it can mint a single record. 18-ideate says ideate is optional and never a gate, that no other verb requires it and nothing warns when it is skipped. An idea cannot be both barred from minting a record until ideated and free to be captured without it.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 653.
Grounds
- declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. Same resolution as the sibling record: the intent's grill settlement ('Optional verb, never a gate') post-dates its press-release wording and matches the chapter and the code.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262036303950 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | wontfix |
| severity | minor |
.abcd/work/issues/wontfix/iss-2610262036303950-itd-104-says-an-idea-is-gated-before-it.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.