The cold-reading draft only ever reads a design document, never code; the glossary's detection position reads the shipped tree against the claim record.

The cold-reading draft only ever reads a design document, never code; the glossary's detection position reads the shipped tree against the claim record.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/glossary/core/reading-position.md:30 — "Where is the shipped tree in tension with the claim record?"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-86-cold-reading-surface.md:41 — "The target is a design document."

reading-position.md defines four positions for a cold reading, one being detection: where the shipped tree is in tension with the claim record. itd-86 says a cold reading's target is a design document, keeps code out of scope, and takes exactly one document. The two disagree on what a cold reading may read.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 993.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. itd-86 was true as a draft and the later shipped intent states how the surface generalised; the code and commands/reading.md follow the shipped four-position design. Optionally mark itd-86 superseded in a separate act.