fix: make the architecture and documentation rules say what is actually true

Three boundaries the layer contract declares had no executable rule behind
them, so the code drifted across all three while every gate stayed green.

`src/contracts` reached back up into `src/application` for the shared `Result`
carrier and the compatibility predicate. Neither package owned the shared
vocabulary and the dependency pointed both ways. Both now live in contracts —
the lower package — and application re-exports them, so no caller moves.

A concrete adapter was not supposed to depend on another concrete adapter, but
only adapter-to-presentation was enforced, and `diagnostics` imported a guard
out of `telemetry`. The guard belongs to neither, so it moved to the adapter
kernel. Stating the rule needed the checker to resolve `$1` in a `to` pattern
against the importing module's own directory; the alternative is one rule per
adapter group, which silently stops covering a group the moment one is added.

Product assembly leaks out of bootstrap: generic presentation reads the
installed-feature registries. That is a real refactor, so the rule freezes the
exact set of modules doing it today rather than pretending it is fixed — a new
edge fails. The two remaining open edges are named in the config, not silent.

Each rule was verified by introducing the violation it forbids and confirming
the gate rejects it.

The documentation drifted the same way. README and the manual accessibility
checklist both said six routes while ten were registered, which left the
platform overview and three reference-resource screens outside the declared
manual review scope without anyone deciding they should be. The scope is now
derived from the route registry by `verify:documentation`, so the sentence
cannot outlive the registry again. The review ledger also named a canonical
path that does not exist in this tree; it is upstream provenance, and it now
says so instead of looking like a broken repository reference.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

scripts/check-ci-contract.ts

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ if (!architecture?.evidenceArtifactIds.some((id) => index.artifacts.get(id)?.pat
 }
 
 const expectedGateIds = Array.from(
-  { length: 26 },
+  { length: 27 },
   (_, index) => `FE-GATE-${String(index + 1).padStart(3, "0")}`,
 );
 const passingResults: Record<string, GateResult> = Object.fromEntries(
@@ -139,4 +139,4 @@ if (failures.length > 0) {
   process.stderr.write(`CI contract failed:\n${failures.join("\n")}\n`);
   process.exit(1);
 }
-process.stdout.write("CI contract: 26 gates, strict v2 graph and generated workflow model PASS\n");
+process.stdout.write("CI contract: 27 gates, strict v2 graph and generated workflow model PASS\n");