Development record
The product-thinker persona is Alice in itd-106 and Iris in itd-135.
issueopennitpickiss-2610262043135705
The product-thinker persona is Alice in itd-106 and Iris in itd-135.
A naming conflict (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-106-abcd-sets-up-the-ci-a-repo-requires-and.md:30— "said Alice, a product thinker" - End B:
.abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-135-iris-opens-abcdev-app-and-understands.md:34— "said Iris, a product thinker"
Under the persona registry rule the role picks the name, so one role carries one registered name. itd-106 attributes its quote to 'Alice, a product thinker'; itd-135 (and itd-104) attribute theirs to 'Iris, a product thinker'. Two names are in use for one role, so at least one record picked by name rather than by role.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1123.
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262043135705 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | open |
| severity | nitpick |
.abcd/work/issues/open/iss-2610262043135705-the-product-thinker-persona-is-alice-in.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References2
mentions2
- iss-2610262043265040itd-106 gives the product-thinker persona the name Alice; itd-2610090831227812 records the registry's product-thinker persona as Iris
- itd-104**abcd gates a new idea before it becomes a record entry: research it against primary sources, grill it against the existing record, and let an independent adversary try to kill it.** A product thinker's exciting idea is cheapest to kill in its first hour — and most expensive to kill after it has minted intents, specs, and branches. `/abcd:ideate` runs the admission interview: SOTA research in which every load-bearing claim is checked against its primary source; a record grill — does the brief, an intent, an ADR, or a principle already cover, contradict, or supersede this?; and an independent adversarial review, evaluator outside the loop. The output is a verdict plus a recorded decision with rejected alternatives; only a surviving idea graduates to a draft intent. The protocol is already proven by hand: three ideas entered it on 2026-07-14 — two were killed (one by a measured null result its premise could not survive, one by three independently fatal methodological defects) and one was reframed by adversarial review before a line was built. The manual run also named the two load-bearing steps automation must keep: check the record first (one idea was already written and superseded), and open the primary (three secondary-source claims were falsified, one of them fabricated by tool extraction). "The ideas I'm proudest of are the ones abcd killed in an afternoon," said Iris, a product thinker. "Each one left a recorded reason behind, so I never talk myself back into them six months later."