The rules-loader intent rejects a machine-wide rules.json; the memory chapter reads a machine memory.json beside a machine rules.json layer.

The rules-loader intent rejects a machine-wide rules.json; the memory chapter reads a machine memory.json beside a machine rules.json layer.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/37-memory.md:28 — "Both are read with the checks the two rules layers get"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-3-modular-rules-loader.md:41 — "explicitly rejected. Keeping a personal cross-repo rules file recreates exactly the"

itd-3 puts a global ~/.abcd/rules.json out of scope as explicitly rejected, keeping rules per-repo only, because a personal cross-repo rules file recreates the failure the intent exists to fix. 37-memory.md places a memory.json beside each rules.json layer and reads the machine's file with the checks the two rules layers get, so it takes a machine rules layer as given. One document forbids the layer the other is built beside.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 766.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The out-of-scope line was true when itd-3 shipped; the later shipped intent reversed it and the intent's own audit note records the reversal.