itd-107 keeps the strict merge policy because ids minted on two branches can collide; itd-114 says such ids never collide.

itd-107 keeps the strict merge policy because ids minted on two branches can collide; itd-114 says such ids never collide.

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-107-autonomous-routines-assemble-from-one.md:138 — "the only place a record id minted concurrently on two branches"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-114-abcd-mints-collision-proof-record-ids.md:21 — "minting the same instant on different branches produce different ids"

itd-107 forbids relaxing the strict status-check policy on the ground that the merged-result run is 'the only place a record id minted concurrently on two branches' becomes visible, because the mint lock does not span checkouts. itd-114 makes every id collision-proof by construction with no coordination, so two agents 'minting the same instant on different branches produce different ids'. One premise is false; the routine template would carry a justification the shipped id scheme has removed.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1115.