itd-34 says its subtype deferral mirrors the lint-code namespace pattern in 06-lint; 06-lint says the engine has no code catalogue.

itd-34 says its subtype deferral mirrors the lint-code namespace pattern in 06-lint; 06-lint says the engine has no code catalogue.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/05-internals/06-lint.md:14 — "The engine carries no numbered code catalogue: rules are named, not numbered"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-34-three-intent-kinds.md:109 — "This mirrors the lint-code namespace pattern in"

itd-34 justifies deferring a closed subtype enum by pointing to the lint-code namespace pattern in 05-internals/06-lint.md, where categories are added as intents introduce them. 06-lint says the engine has no numbered code catalogue, that rules are named rather than numbered, and that any literal list belongs in a generated region. The pattern itd-34 relies on is not in the document it cites.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 898.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The pattern was a justification for deferring a closed enum, not a delivered behaviour; the later lint contract is the current word.