fix: archaeology lint wording, paid-file census, harness-version non-behavioral record

Co-authored-by: capy-ai[bot] <230910855+capy-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md

@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ Evaluate and diagram:
 * Security architecture. Auth boundaries, data access patterns, API surfaces. For each new endpoint or data mutation: who can call it, what do they get, what can they change?
 * Production failure scenarios. For each integration point, describe one realistic failure and whether the plan handles it.
 * Rollback posture. If this ships broken, name the rollback path and time.
-* Value test for artifacts about the work. When the plan adds a status report, audit matrix, certificate, meta-report or conformance check that nothing consumes, ask: who uses it, what decision or delivered behavior changes because it exists, why this is the smallest useful version, and when it retires. An explicit user request answers the first two and is recorded as provenance; the last two are still answered. A credible, explicitly identified preventive risk is a valid answer; a past incident is not required. Manufacturing a code consumer to pass the question is the pathology, not an answer. Carve-out: product observability (dashboards, alerts, runbooks for the shipped system) is launch scope under Prime Directive 5 and never a process artifact; user-facing docs and agent-consumed instructions are product. The question applies to artifacts about the work, not about the system.
+* Value test for artifacts about the work. When the plan adds a status report, audit matrix, certificate, meta-report or conformance check that nothing consumes, ask: who uses it, what decision or delivered behavior changes because it exists, why this is the smallest useful version, and when it retires. An explicit user request answers the first two and is recorded as provenance; the last two are still answered. A credible, explicitly identified preventive risk is a valid answer; prior occurrence is not required. Manufacturing a code consumer to pass the question is the pathology, not an answer. Carve-out: product observability (dashboards, alerts, runbooks for the shipped system) is launch scope under Prime Directive 5 and never a process artifact; user-facing docs and agent-consumed instructions are product. The question applies to artifacts about the work, not about the system.
 
 **EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:**
 * What would make this architecture elegant and obvious to a new engineer?

plan-ceo-review/sections/review-sections.md.tmpl

@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ Evaluate and diagram:
 * Security architecture. Auth boundaries, data access patterns, API surfaces. For each new endpoint or data mutation: who can call it, what do they get, what can they change?
 * Production failure scenarios. For each integration point, describe one realistic failure and whether the plan handles it.
 * Rollback posture. If this ships broken, name the rollback path and time.
-* Value test for artifacts about the work. When the plan adds a status report, audit matrix, certificate, meta-report or conformance check that nothing consumes, ask: who uses it, what decision or delivered behavior changes because it exists, why this is the smallest useful version, and when it retires. An explicit user request answers the first two and is recorded as provenance; the last two are still answered. A credible, explicitly identified preventive risk is a valid answer; a past incident is not required. Manufacturing a code consumer to pass the question is the pathology, not an answer. Carve-out: product observability (dashboards, alerts, runbooks for the shipped system) is launch scope under Prime Directive 5 and never a process artifact; user-facing docs and agent-consumed instructions are product. The question applies to artifacts about the work, not about the system.
+* Value test for artifacts about the work. When the plan adds a status report, audit matrix, certificate, meta-report or conformance check that nothing consumes, ask: who uses it, what decision or delivered behavior changes because it exists, why this is the smallest useful version, and when it retires. An explicit user request answers the first two and is recorded as provenance; the last two are still answered. A credible, explicitly identified preventive risk is a valid answer; prior occurrence is not required. Manufacturing a code consumer to pass the question is the pathology, not an answer. Carve-out: product observability (dashboards, alerts, runbooks for the shipped system) is launch scope under Prime Directive 5 and never a process artifact; user-facing docs and agent-consumed instructions are product. The question applies to artifacts about the work, not about the system.
 
 **EXPANSION and SELECTIVE EXPANSION additions:**
 * What would make this architecture elegant and obvious to a new engineer?

scripts/harness-version.json

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
     "scripts/lib/published-text.ts": {"blob":"3f2e4d616b5dd0204035710c66b64d49055c5714","since":4},
     "scripts/lib/shard-engine.ts": {"blob":"3cd0b1aaa84018b00bf9ea0ce48093f3c8492f66","since":4},
     "scripts/test-paid-shards.ts": {"blob":"8ddee5f11ed7856876135520dd8025ab989e2db9","since":4},
-    "scripts/test-pr-profile.ts": {"blob":"791d101b37e81bdc200e33f72abc3cc12eeaab0f","since":4,"nonBehavioral":"Merge with main (HARNESS_VERSION 4): FREE_ONLY_PR_FILES gains careful/bin/check-careful.sh and CASE_TEST_NAMES maps office-hours-auto-mode to its real Bun test name; selection only, no case verdict rule changes"},
+    "scripts/test-pr-profile.ts": {"blob":"2adf1e8dbc1129169fa6dccf2e0b14d7b7fdb698","since":4,"nonBehavioral":"HONEST_WORK_GATE_INTEGRITY: PR_PROFILE_CASE_IDS and PR_PROFILE_TEST_FILES gain review-gate-integrity; selection only, no case verdict rule changes"},
     "scripts/test-strict-output.ts": {"blob":"01185d20dc9761b04b9b2f751ec98664fe0eaf93","since":4},
     "test/helpers/agent-sdk-runner.ts": {"blob":"210bba92d241a90df578b2c7fc943ac5755d0025","since":4},
     "test/helpers/auq-substance-panel.ts": {"blob":"4881260ef793668e4963a062db6d06a5e1f7a40f","since":4},

test/eng-finding-retry-budget.test.ts

@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ test('live periodic census fits the declared CI wall including setup', () => {
 
 test('registered allocation is deterministic and preserves every discovered file', () => {
   const files = collectPaidTestFiles();
-  expect(files).toHaveLength(107); // + skill-e2e-autoplan-schema-canary, -guard-pty and -long-session (Oct 7 wave, CEO-13, ENG-18, CEO-15); + skill-e2e-ship-measure-seeded-flake (v1.91.32.0); W5a: 15 carve wrappers became one case-sharded file; + codex-e2e-multiblock-live and skill-e2e-design-model-smoke (v1.91.30.0);
+  expect(files).toHaveLength(108); // + skill-e2e-gate-integrity (HONEST_WORK_GATE_INTEGRITY W8); + skill-e2e-autoplan-schema-canary, -guard-pty and -long-session (Oct 7 wave, CEO-13, ENG-18, CEO-15); + skill-e2e-ship-measure-seeded-flake (v1.91.32.0); W5a: 15 carve wrappers became one case-sharded file; + codex-e2e-multiblock-live and skill-e2e-design-model-smoke (v1.91.30.0);
   expect(files).toContain('test/skill-e2e-ship-skip.test.ts');
   const m = livePlan(files);
   expect(livePlan([...files].reverse())).toEqual(m);