Part of #304 (EPIC: Spec Governance Cleanup). Extends #312 (user-auth contradiction — the audit pinned it to exact REQs). Governing: SDD spec hygiene; each item is an audit CRITICAL unless noted.
Five spec-vs-spec (or spec-internal) contradictions where two normative statements cannot both hold. Each resolution must pick a winner, amend the loser, and note the decision:
Requirements
Acceptance Criteria
- No pair of accepted artifacts makes contradictory normative claims (re-run
/sdd:audit category 3 clean on these five)
- Each amendment references the resolving decision in the spec changelog/frontmatter
Branch
feature/350-resolve-spec-contradictions
PR Convention
PR title references the story; body ends with Closes #350, references the parent epic and governing artifacts above.
🤖 Posted on behalf of @joestump by Claude.
Part of #304 (EPIC: Spec Governance Cleanup). Extends #312 (user-auth contradiction — the audit pinned it to exact REQs). Governing: SDD spec hygiene; each item is an audit CRITICAL unless noted.
Five spec-vs-spec (or spec-internal) contradictions where two normative statements cannot both hold. Each resolution must pick a winner, amend the loser, and note the decision:
Requirements
SupportsAuth() == false(which requires implementing it). Code implements it with SupportsAuth()=false and a comment acknowledging the deviation (internal/providers/navidrome/navidrome.go:36-71)Acceptance Criteria
/sdd:auditcategory 3 clean on these five)Branch
feature/350-resolve-spec-contradictionsPR Convention
PR title references the story; body ends with
Closes #350, references the parent epic and governing artifacts above.🤖 Posted on behalf of
@joestumpby Claude.