The spec-steps intent starts each step's lane only after the previous step merged; the build chapter opens a lane once the steps its needs line names have landed, so lanes can run side by side.

The spec-steps intent starts each step's lane only after the previous step merged; the build chapter opens a lane once the steps its needs line names have landed, so lanes can run side by side.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/34-build.md:417 — "A lane opens for a spec step once every step it needs has landed (its - needs: line, or by default every step before it, ruling DR6b)"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609212103565953-a-spec-lists-its-steps-and-the-build.md:40 — "runs one lane per step in order, each landing as its own pull request; the next step's lane starts after the previous has merged"

itd-2609212103565953 says the loop runs one lane per step in order and the next step's lane starts after the previous has merged. 34-build.md opens a lane once every step it needs has landed, read from the step's - needs: line, with every earlier step only as the default, and runs lanes in parallel up to the ceiling. The two agree for a spec that declares no needs. They disagree for one that does: there the brief opens a later step's lane before the previous one merges.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 753.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The two agree for a spec with no needs line; the later shipped pacing ruling names the parallel exception, and 34-build states both.