itd-2610040817105016 and itd-61 both derive implied work from a brief edit, one advisory and one blocking

itd-2610040817105016 and itd-61 both derive implied work from a brief edit, one advisory and one blocking

A scope leakage (severity minor) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-2610040817105016-a-product-thinker-reads-their-brief-as.md:19 — "When they change a section, abcd names exactly which intents to re-check"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-61-brief-change-derivation.md:24 — "the edit is blocked until each drawn-out item is accepted or dismissed"

itd-2610040817105016 names the intents a brief change touches, proposes a new intent, issue or decision, and records nothing until the person confirms. itd-61 runs a pass on any brief change and blocks the edit until each drawn-out item is accepted or dismissed. The same capability is drafted twice with opposite gating.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1101.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): the two ends do not conflict when read in full. Both are drafts, linked by a typed refinement; the later one makes the derivation deterministic and keeps a confirm step, and does not say the edit may land unreconciled, so the gating difference is an open design question rather than an opposition.