The lint contract says rules are named, never numbered; itd-43 says a `GL002` lint catches regressions

The lint contract says rules are named, never numbered; itd-43 says a GL002 lint catches regressions

A premise contradiction (severity minor) 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-43-epic-to-spec-terminology.md:40 — "and the GL002 lint catches regressions"

06-lint says the engine has no numbered code catalogue: rules are named, not numbered, and are defined in the two JSON configs. itd-43 says its spec term-file rename is guarded by the GL002 lint. A numbered rule code has no place in a lint contract that says no numbering exists.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 922.