This is the record of an abcd-managed repository

abcdBetav0.16.2 · 2026-11-06

Development record

itd-81 requires binary verdicts from every verdict-rendering agent, the intent auditor included; itd-80 ships that reviewer with four-state verdicts

issuewontfixminoriss-2610262043429522

itd-81 requires binary verdicts from every verdict-rendering agent, the intent auditor included; itd-80 ships that reviewer with four-state verdicts

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

  • End A: .abcd/development/intents/disciplines/itd-81-judge-calibration.md:102 — "Binary verdicts. Severity is structural (a FIX-FIRST list vs a NOTES list)"
  • End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-80-intent-lifecycle-automation.md:19 — "per-criterion verdicts (MET / MET_WITH_CONCERNS / NOT_MET / INCONCLUSIVE)"

itd-81's rule covers every agent that renders a verdict and names intent-auditor. It puts binary verdicts in scope and carries severity in structure. itd-80 ships that same reviewer emitting MET / MET_WITH_CONCERNS / NOT_MET / INCONCLUSIVE for each criterion. A four-valued verdict per criterion is not binary. Either the shipped reviewer breaks the discipline, or the discipline does not cover the agent it names.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1156.

Grounds

  • declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536) as a duplicate of iss-2610262033588599. Same question on the same itd-81 line, here against itd-80's MET / MET_WITH_CONCERNS / NOT_MET / INCONCLUSIVE, which are the intent-auditor verdicts iss-2610262033588599 names.

Frontmatter

idiss-2610262043429522
typeissue
lifecyclewontfix
severityminor

References2

mentions2