The memory chapter says the prompt router is a binary sub-command, not a script in hooks/; the shipped rules-loader intent scopes it as hooks/prompt_router_hook.py.

The memory chapter says the prompt router is a binary sub-command, not a script in hooks/; the shipped rules-loader intent scopes it as hooks/prompt_router_hook.py.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/05-internals/07-memory.md:181 — "It is a sub-command of the abcd binary reached through the hook manifest, not a script file in hooks/."
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-3-modular-rules-loader.md:30 — "hooks/prompt_router_hook.py"

07-memory states that itd-3's prompt router is a sub-command of the abcd binary reached through the hook manifest, and explicitly not a script file in hooks/. itd-3's scope defines the router as the Python file hooks/prompt_router_hook.py. The two documents disagree about what the shipped router is and where it lives.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1022.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. hooks/ holds only shell wrappers that exec the binary; the plan records the Python-to-Go change before the intent shipped.