itd-46 lists `ship` and `grill` as existing intent sub-verbs that keep requiring an id; the build sequence says neither exists.

itd-46 lists ship and grill as existing intent sub-verbs that keep requiring an id; the build sequence says neither exists.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-46-abcd-intent-quoted-text-create-symmetric.md:75 — "refine, grill, plan, ship, review, reclassify, link, resolve, wontfix, promote continue to require their target's ID."
• End B: .abcd/development/brief/06-delivery/01-build-sequence.md:99 — "so there is no intent ship. There is no grill sub-verb"

itd-46 calls the rule that grill, plan, ship and the other mutating sub-verbs continue to require their target's id an already-correct shape it leaves alone, which assumes those sub-verbs exist. The build sequence says an intent ships as the close-hook of abcd spec close, so there is no intent ship, and there is no grill sub-verb. The two documents describe different /abcd:intent surfaces.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1049.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): a later record already settles which end holds. The CLI registers no ship, grill or review sub-verb on intent (review became audit under itd-123), so the list names verbs later records removed or never built.