Development record

The glossary enforces 'epic' as a forbidden synonym; itd-4's issue schema names a related_epics field holding spec ids.

issuewontfixnitpickiss-2610262041559803

A terminology drift (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

End A: .abcd/development/brief/glossary/README.md:139 — "This repo currently enforces one — epic (itd-43)"
End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-4-issue-capture.md:42 — "related_epics (list of spc-N)"

The glossary README says this repository enforces one forbidden synonym, 'epic'. itd-4's ledger frontmatter schema names its spec back-references 'related_epics (list of spc-N)', so the issue schema uses the forbidden word for a spec.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1034.

Grounds

declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The shipped intent's own audit notes already say which name holds, and no ledger code reads related_epics.

Frontmatter

id	iss-2610262041559803
type	issue
lifecycle	wontfix
severity	nitpick

.abcd/work/issues/wontfix/iss-2610262041559803-the-glossary-enforces-epic-as-a.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗

References1

itd-4Nothing You Notice Gets Lostrelated

mentions2

dcn-26102711123305362026-10-27 — The product thinker accepted on 2026-10-27 the triage of the 1301 records the 2026-10-26 consistency pass filed. The duplicates, the records a later record already settles, the ones that are no contradiction and the one already fixed are closed with each reader's reason. Every other record gets its fix as its remedy, the rulings' accepted answers included, so a drain can take it. The 45 major records left open are deferred past v0.15.1, because the brief's single-home rewrite rewrites or removes most of the passages they quote. The person ruled the major rulings one at a time; the minor rulings take their recommended answers.
itd-43abcd Speaks One Word for a Specced Block of Work, and That Word Is "Spec"