docs(governance): fold in codex round-2 review findings (6 issues)

External Codex CLI review pass 2 surfaced 6 substantive issues that
round 1 fold-in missed — the self-consistency trap recurred when fold-in
was scoped only to files codex explicitly named in round 1. This commit
closes round 2 in full.

1. ADR 0002 contradicted ALIGNMENT.md (P1, codex round 2 finding 1)
   ADR 0002 still said "three default-enabled (Anthropic, OpenAI Codex,
   Mistral Vibe)" while ALIGNMENT.md (post round 1) said v0.1 ships zero
   Enabled Providers. Accepted ADR contradicted constitution.
   Fix: ADR 0002 + ADR 0001 + docs/adr/README.md index rewritten to
   Candidate framing.

2. release.yml would publish stale v0.1.0-bootstrap notes (P1, round 2
   finding 2)
   The "Unreleased" amendments would have been silently dropped on tag
   push because release.yml extracts only the matching version section.
   Fix: CHANGELOG restructured so the amended state IS the v0.1.0-
   bootstrap section. Full review history (opus + 2 codex rounds)
   captured inline.

3. package.json advertised non-existent entrypoints (P2, round 2
   finding 3)
   main/scripts.test/scripts.start pointed to files that do not exist.
   Local npm test and npm start failed; CI masked.
   Fix: remove all three from package.json. They return in Phase 1
   alongside the real files. test.yml bootstrap-tolerance updated to
   also skip when scripts.test is absent.

4. models-registry.json missing despite SPOT claim (P2, round 2
   finding 4)
   Fix: minimal stub committed (version + empty providers map).
   alignment.yml validator now actually runs.

5. alignment.yml commit-citation soft check Bash subshell trap (P2,
   round 2 finding 5)
   git log ... while read ... WARN=1 — the while loop ran in a subshell
   because of the pipe, so WARN never propagated out. The post-loop
   check always reported "clean" even when warnings fired.
   Fix: process substitution done less than less than (git log ...).

6. Tier A "permanent" wording inconsistent across ADR 0006 + alignment.
   yml workflow text (P3, round 2 finding 6)
   Fix: unified to "Excluded by default with no routine reinstatement
   path; re-inclusion requires ADR 0006 supersession or amendment with
   new primary-source evidence."

Reviewer: OpenAI Codex CLI (external, fresh-context, pass 2). Iron Rule
10 satisfied — round 2 reviewer was not the implementer of round 1
fold-in.

Memory learning updated: the self-consistency trap recurs in the fold-in
step. Future fold-ins must grep the entire repo for the concept, not
only edit files the reviewer named. See learnings/ai_reviewer_self_
consistency_trap.md in cross-machine memory.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (noreply@anthropic.com)

docs/adr/0006-provider-inclusion.md

@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ The inclusion ADR is a hard prerequisite for the plugin's merge — no ADR, no m
 **Negative**
 - Tier B's consent UX adds a step to first-enable. Users who already understand the risk perceive friction. The friction is intentional; the consent is the structural mechanism that protects the user.
 - The framework is provider-by-provider, not category-by-category. A new Chinese provider similar to MiniMax/GLM/Qwen gets its own ADR even though the pattern is shared. This is intentional — boilerplate-and-paste ADRs are still cheaper than the alternative of "we just classed them together once and now we have a category drift problem when their ToS shifts."
-- Tier-A exclusion is *permanent* in the current framework, with no documented reinstatement path. If Google were to walk back the named-tool prohibition and the cost picture changed, Antigravity would need a fresh ADR superseding this one. The framework deliberately makes Tier A "needs a new decision to revisit," not "auto-reconsidered each release."
+- Tier-A exclusion has **no routine reinstatement path** — re-inclusion requires this ADR to be superseded or amended with new primary-source evidence (per the Tier-A definition above). If Google were to walk back the named-tool prohibition and the cost picture changed, the path is "draft an ADR amendment citing the new primary-source evidence," not a routine config flip. The framework deliberately makes Tier A "needs a constitutional-level decision to revisit," not "auto-reconsidered each release." This is procedurally stricter than "permanent" (the amendment procedure is always available) but practically equivalent — the bar is constitutional, not operational.
 
 **Mitigations**
 - The README "Supported Providers" table is the user's first stop and surfaces tiers prominently. The dashboard (spec §4.6) shows tier per enabled provider so users see it on every dashboard load, not only at enable-time.