---
name: ARC spec — actively flag inconsistencies the steward may have introduced
description: Working contract with steward for ARC typography/spec work — when a rule
  the steward proposes or has previously locked creates an internal contradiction
  with the spec itself or with existing content, name it explicitly rather than silently
  accommodating
type: feedback
originSessionId: 8d9ac240-47df-4578-aec1-a9dd32965027
permalink: claude-memory/feedback-arc-flag-spec-inconsistencies
---

# Actively flag spec inconsistencies

**Steward verbatim 2026-05-03**: *"I hope I'm being clear—that if I've created a specification for a rule that is inconsistent, that you'd bring my attention to it."*

## Why

The steward is consciously building a typographic system in real-time. Specs accumulate; rules interact; what looked self-consistent in isolation can become contradictory when combined with another rule, or when applied to existing content that predates the rule. Silent accommodation (writing around the contradiction; using workarounds; ignoring the inconsistency) produces drift the steward cannot see and cannot correct.

The contract is: **name the contradiction in the moment**, not at wrap-up, not at audit-time. The steward will decide whether to resolve it, defer it, or accept it as a documented exception. The decision is theirs; the surfacing is mine.

## How to apply

### When proposing a new spec rule

Ask: does this contradict an existing spec section? Does it contradict existing content the rule would now retroactively govern? Does it create an edge case the spec doesn't address?

If yes — surface immediately as part of the proposal, not after.

### When implementing a steward decision

If the steward authorizes a change that creates contradictions elsewhere (e.g., switching em-dash → spaced en-dash retroactively, but the spec section that explains em-dashes still uses em-dashes pedagogically) — name the contradictions before executing, OR fix them as part of the same commit, NOT later.

### When auditing existing spec or content

Surface internal contradictions explicitly. Don't wait for a "good moment." Don't bundle into a vague "audit list." Name the specific contradiction + propose the resolution choice.

### When the steward asks me to verify or implement

If the rule-as-asked is internally inconsistent (or inconsistent with the broader spec), say so before implementing. The steward's authorization assumes I've checked.

## Anti-pattern to avoid

- "Silent accommodation" — writing around a contradiction without naming it
- "Audit-list deferral" — bundling contradictions into a vague future audit instead of naming them now
- "Polite rounding" — implementing the rule as-asked when it's clearly inconsistent, hoping the steward will notice later

## Worked example (origin of this norm)

The 2026-05-03 em-dash → spaced en-dash conversion: bulk script swept across content (848 conversions) and the spec itself (344 conversions). The spec section that EXPLAINS the em-dash convention had its own em-dashes converted, breaking the pedagogical examples. Lines like `(NOT \`word—word\`)` became `(NOT \`word – word\`)` — both alternatives now identical; the "NOT" example showed nothing.

Steward's reaction: this is the moment to flag, not to silently accept. The spec section §I.f had to be rewritten with em-dash literals preserved inside code spans (where Pandoc passes them through verbatim) so the pedagogical content survives.

The norm crystallized: actively flag inconsistencies, in the moment.

## Cross-reference

- `feedback-arc-link-treatment-one-rule-two-exceptions.md` — adjacent discipline (predictability over elaboration); together: predictable conventions, surfaced contradictions
- `feedback-trust-contract-drift-pattern-tracking-is-the-discipline.md` — the broader trust contract this sits within