itd-2610111655362931, filed after the ruling, counts 'maintainers' for promotion agreement while itd-2609212137129937 bans the word

itd-2610111655362931, filed after the ruling, counts 'maintainers' for promotion agreement while itd-2609212137129937 bans the word

A terminology drift (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-2610111655362931-on-abcd-s-dashboard-the-product-thinker.md:18 — "in a repository with more than two maintainers another maintainer agrees before a promotion lands"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609212137129937-abcd-s-own-text-names-the-product.md:54 — "Everywhere abcd writes, each use names the role it meant; a lint bans the word after"

The draft requires another maintainer's agreement in a repository with more than two maintainers, but the shipped intent ruled that each use names the role it meant and that a lint bans the word afterwards. The draft mixes the two named roles with an undefined count of maintainers, so who must agree is not stated in the vocabulary the record allows.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1132.