A use case or application cannot name a command, doctrine or claim that does not exist, and the two catalogues cannot disagree about which applies to which

What it means

The use cases under .ai/repo/use-cases/ and the applications under .ai/repo/applications/ describe what Majordomus is for. Every command a use case walks through, every rule it relies on, and every promise it makes is a reference to something else in the repository — and every one of those references is checked. So is the relationship between the two files: a use case naming an application that does not name it back is a failure, not an asymmetry somebody will notice later.

How it works

mj_validate_catalogue in lib/doctor.sh flattens both registries with the tool's own YAML reader and resolves each reference against the thing that defines it: commands against docs/CLI.md, doctrines against the resolved rule set through mj_doc_index, claims against docs/CLAIMS.yaml. Cross-references between the two catalogues are checked in both directions by mj_cat_has and mj_cat_back. An application that declares no does_not_fit_when is refused outright.

The doctrine majordomus.catalogue-integrity is blocking and enforced by doctor and watch, so the same rule answers "is this catalogue sound" and "has it drifted" without a second implementation. scripts/generate-site-data repeats the resolution when it builds the pages, and refuses to emit if anything dangles — a broken reference cannot reach the published site.

How to see it

majordomus doctor
# OK catalogue  6 use case(s), 4 application(s) — every command, doctrine, claim and cross-reference resolves, both directions

Change a doctrine id in a use case under .ai/repo/use-cases/ to one that does not exist and doctor names the use case, the missing id, and the command that lists the real ones; majordomus usecase validate prints the same lines.

What it does not cover

Resolution is not accuracy. A use case whose steps are in the wrong order, or whose situation describes a problem nobody has, passes every check here — each reference exists. What is enforced is that the catalogue cannot describe a tool other than this one; whether what it describes is worth doing is a judgement no validator makes.

Why it exists

Documentation about a tool drifts faster than the tool, and drifts silently, because nothing executes it. Every failure this project cares about has the same shape — something declared, nothing checking that the declaration still corresponds to reality — and prose is the largest surface where that is usually accepted. Treating a use case as a set of references rather than as text makes it checkable, which is the only reason to write it as data at all.