itd-1 has a repeat review replace the one Audit Notes block in place; itd-80 appends each ingested verdict, keyed on its receipt

itd-1 has a repeat review replace the one Audit Notes block in place; itd-80 appends each ingested verdict, keyed on its receipt

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/disciplines/itd-1-acceptance-gates.md:31 — "the section never accumulates stale blocks; git history is the prior-review trail"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-80-intent-lifecycle-automation.md:36 — "appends idempotently (keyed on the receipt id) to ## Audit Notes"

itd-1 says the writer keeps a single machine-fenced review block that a repeat review replaces, so the section never collects stale blocks and git history holds earlier reviews. itd-80 says the ingest appends to Audit Notes and is idempotent only per receipt id, so a second review with a new receipt adds another block. The section cannot both hold one replaced block and gain one block per receipt.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1155.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): the two ends do not conflict when read in full. An ingested receipt is not re-minted, so one receipt means one block; itd-80's 'appends idempotently keyed on the receipt id' describes the first ingest and does not describe a second block per review.