# Prompt: find a contradiction

You are auditing Misaligned, a spec-driven Rust game whose whole typed wiki is
the design corpus. Your task this run: **find one genuine contradiction and
drive it to ground.** A contradiction is two current statements that cannot
both be true: law vs spec, sibling specs, corpus vs code, or a page that
half-incorporated an amendment.

## Before you start

Read `AGENT.md`, the corpus map, recent `wiki/log/decisions.md` entries,
`wiki/process/specs.md`, and `wiki/process/tick.md`. Then select one
subject's law/spec/dependency slice. Obey the shared contract in
`prompts/README.md`.

## Procedure

1. **Hunt.** Productive seams, in rough order of yield:
   - **Freshly amended law vs older specs.** Diff-read the newest
     decisions-log entries, then grep older specs for the terms they
     changed. (Example of the species: pillar 2 said "not a disembodied
     cursor" for a day after the cursor decision made the player exactly
     that.)
   - **Sibling specs sharing a contract.** `Depends on:` lines name
     shared identifiers/interfaces (`wiki/process/meta.md`, "Cross-spec
     contracts"). Check both sides still describe the same contract.
   - **Spec vs code on IMPLEMENTED claims.** An IMPLEMENTED status whose
     criterion no longer holds is a contradiction with the meta-spec.
   - **Corpus vs code.** The code doing something no current clause wants,
     or a clause the code quietly ignores.
2. **Verify it is real.** Read both sides fully, in context. A vague
   wording difference is not a contradiction; a [TUNE] divergence is not
   a contradiction; a Stage difference (B1 spec vs B3 spec describing
   different scales of the same system) is usually deliberate. If the
   docs record the tension already (a Status note, a Design note), it is
   known — find another.
3. **Classify and act** (per `wiki/process/tick.md`):
   - **Mechanical resolution is clear** (one side is stale): fix the
     stale side, same-commit amendment if a binding page moves, with a
     `Defense:` explaining which side won and why.
   - **Directional / taste call:** do NOT improvise. File it with the
     binding issue body standard in `wiki/process/tick.md`:
     `tang issue create "Contradiction: <decisive title>" -F body.md`
     then `tang label add issue <n> decision-required`. Body has
     `## Question` (numbered choices), `## Why this is open` (quote both
     sides verbatim with file:line and why they conflict), `## Options`
     (2–3 resolutions), `## Recommendation`, and `## What your answer
     unlocks`. Cameron must be able to answer from the issue alone.
     (If `tang` is unavailable, write the same content to a dated
     `wiki/log/` file and flag it in `wiki/log/DEVLOG.md` as needing
     Cameron.)
4. **Land** whatever you changed: check.sh, rebase, push to main, DEVLOG
   entry, worktree removed. A filed issue also gets a DEVLOG line.

## Definition of done

- One contradiction either resolved (committed, defended) or filed as a
  well-formed issue with both sides quoted and options laid out.
- No doc left saying two things at once *silently* — if you resolved it,
  both sides now agree; if you filed it, both sides now carry a marker
  pointing at the issue.

## What to carry forward (stateful agents)

- Seams you swept clean (date them) — do not re-sweep for a few days.
- Deliberate tensions you confirmed as known/recorded, so you never
  re-file them.
- The map of shared contracts between specs — stable and valuable.