The dependency graph says severity inheritance decides what to build first, but build next picks readiest first and explicitly not most-important-first

The dependency graph says severity inheritance decides what to build first, but build next picks readiest first and explicitly not most-important-first

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

• End A: .abcd/development/intents/drafts/itd-78-intent-dependency-graph.md:17 — "A minor intent holding up a major one jumps the queue while staying honestly minor"
• End B: .abcd/development/intents/shipped/itd-2609211116005482-abcd-build-next-picks-the-readiest.md:66 — "Not oldest-first, not most-important-first; the evidence for readiness as the predictor is the reason"

itd-78 claims its derived effective priority computes the order, so a minor blocker of a major intent jumps the queue. itd-2609211116005482 rules that the pick is readiest first, oldest among equals, and not most-important-first, and it filters on edges without ranking on them. The two records disagree on what decides the next thing built.

Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 1195.

Grounds

• declined: Closed in the 2026-10-27 triage (dcn-2610271112330536): the two ends do not conflict when read in full. The shipped pick ruling draws the line itself in its out-of-scope list, and itd-78 reports a ranked list without changing what abcd build next picks; letting the pick use inherited severity would be a new ruling, not a repair of either record.