This is the record of an abcd-managed repository

abcdBetav0.16.2 · 2026-11-06

Development record

The spec-steps intent has `implement step` and the spec's steps share one word; the build chapter says steps and stages are two words for two things.

issuewontfixminoriss-2610262037500468

The spec-steps intent has implement step and the spec's steps share one word; the build chapter says steps and stages are two words for two things.

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

  • End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/34-build.md:388 — "A spec's steps and a lane's stages are two words for two things"
  • End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609212103565953-a-spec-lists-its-steps-and-the-build.md:43 — "implement step (the loop's step interface) and this section share the word, and the command page says so"

itd-2609212103565953 puts 'one word' in scope: the loop's step interface, implement step, and the spec's ## Steps section share the word step, and the command page says so. 34-build.md records ruling BU1 the other way: a spec's steps and a lane's stages are two words for two things, and state version 4 renamed the lane's step to stage so that step names only the spec's steps. One document makes the shared word the rule; the other removes it as a confusion.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 752.

Grounds

  • declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The resolved issue says the glossary and pages now keep step for the spec's piece only, which is what 34-build and the code (schema version 4) do.

Frontmatter

idiss-2610262037500468
typeissue
lifecyclewontfix
severityminor

References1

mentions1