itd-1 fixes the audit at four verdict states; itd-50 adds UNACHIEVABLE as a fifth terminal audit outcome.

itd-1 fixes the audit at four verdict states; itd-50 adds UNACHIEVABLE as a fifth terminal audit outcome.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/disciplines/itd-1-acceptance-gates.md:46 — "four states, lifted from PAUL. Binary pass/fail loses information; four states preserve nuance without exploding."
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/planned/itd-50-loop-toward-acceptance.md:52 — "A new terminal audit outcome distinct from NOT_MET"

itd-1 fixes the escalation states at 'four states' (MET, MET_WITH_CONCERNS, NOT_MET, INCONCLUSIVE) for both per-criterion and overall verdicts, and argues four keep nuance without exploding. itd-50 introduces 'a new terminal audit outcome distinct from NOT_MET', UNACHIEVABLE, and its decisions apply it to a criterion judged unmeetable. Either the audit's verdict vocabulary has four values or it has five; the discipline that governs every audit is not amended, so the Audit Notes writer and the loop would disagree on what a verdict can be.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1113.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): the two ends do not conflict when read in full. itd-1's four states are the per-criterion verdicts; itd-50 states that UNACHIEVABLE is not a fifth criterion verdict and the intent is planned, so nothing ships a conflicting enum yet.