itd-190 says the readiness gate enforces the claim-recording rules; 34-build says the readiness gate only reports them as advisory and enforcement happens at a run.

itd-190 says the readiness gate enforces the claim-recording rules; 34-build says the readiness gate only reports them as advisory and enforcement happens at a run.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/disciplines/itd-190-the-claim-recording-gradient-an-intent-s.md:39 — "the gradient binds standalone intents at the readiness gate from adoption on"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/34-build.md:65 — "The readiness gate reports both as advisory; a run is where they bind"

itd-190's rule says the gradient binds standalone intents at the readiness gate, and that a blank scope-conditions section or an empty mechanism section is a gate fault. 34-build says the readiness gate reports the mechanism prompt and the scope conditions as advisory, and that they bind only when a build starts. Either the gate refuses, or it only advises; the two pages say opposite things.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 710.