itd-2609150819445595 says every spec close mints an owed receipt; the verification matrix says only the shipping close does, and a build run ingests its verdict at that close.

itd-2609150819445595 says every spec close mints an owed receipt; the verification matrix says only the shipping close does, and a build run ingests its verdict at that close.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/brief/06-delivery/02-verification-matrix.md:56 — "and ingests that verdict at the close rather than leaving it owed"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609150819445595-a-debt-nothing-lists-owed-fidelity.md:41 — "Every spec close mints an owed receipt in the same change"

The owed-review intent's first decision depends on the premise that every spec close mints an owed receipt in the same change. The matrix's intent-lifecycle row says three things: an earlier close of a multi-spec intent moves nothing, only the close that ships an intent makes its audit owed, and a build run audits before landing and ingests the verdict at the close rather than leaving it owed. Some closes therefore mint no owed receipt, and the intent's reason for never gating on owed reviews rests on a premise the matrix contradicts.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1037.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): the two ends do not conflict when read in full. Read in full, the decision's reasoning (a refusal would block by construction) still applies to the ship-closing hand-run close, and the matrix adds the multi-spec and build-run cases without negating it.