The build intent puts an issue lane's hand-back in the lane report; the drain brief puts handback in the receipt

The build intent puts an issue lane's hand-back in the lane report; the drain brief puts handback in the receipt

A terminology drift (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/planned/itd-2609201916151817-one-verb-takes-a-single-intent-from.md:76 — "the lane report carries a handback: field the loop reads as a first-class outcome"
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/35-drain.md:572 — "A lane that finds a decision in its issue writes handback (a kind, a reason and, where the kind needs one, a home) in its receipt instead of resolving it."

Decision 10 of the build intent says the lane report carries a handback: field that the loop reads. The drain chapter says the lane writes handback (kind, reason, home) in its receipt instead. The brief treats the receipt and the implementer's report as two separate things, so the two documents put the field in different places.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 729.