Conflict‑Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) is central to the success of SAT solvers, and its adaptation to Constraint Programming (CP) through Lazy Clause Generation (LCG) has been a major breakthrough for CP solving. A core requirement of LCG is to maintain both a CP and SAT view of the problem. Because maintaining a full SAT encoding is impractical, solvers rely on partial and solver‑specific encodings - an approach that has evolved as folklore rather than formal design. We present the first systematic analysis of how leading LCG solvers maintain their SAT encodings, based on source‑code inspection and developer correspondence. Our analysis reveals substantial differences in explanation lifting, backwards explanations, linking clauses, and nogood minimisation, all driven by the need to preserve a SAT view. To overcome these compromises, we propose a native CDCL framework for CP. We replace SAT literals with atomic constraints, enabling conflict analysis, nogood learning, and nogood propagation directly at the CP level. This results in cleaner algorithmic design, eliminates SAT‑specific complications, and allows us to introduce extended nogood propagation, a generalisation of SAT‑based clause propagation, as well as CPIP nogoods, a generalisation of SAT-based learned nogoods. Our implementation of the framework in Pumpkin demonstrates competitive performance in the MiniZinc Challenge 2025. Additionally, we empirically show that extended nogood propagation combined with CPIP nogoods can significantly reduce failures, especially on problems with constraints that reason over domain holes. Overall, our framework provides a principled and semantically rich generalisation of CDCL for CP.