fix(docs): correct Score 5 page reference and verify added figures (F-3)

Follow-up to f2c54fa. Per-page extraction shows the sycophancy rubric spans
pp. 9-10 of the Appendix, with Score 5 on p.10 — the first pass wrote
"page 9" in both SKILL.md and interaction-report.md.

Also re-verified against source the three figures the correction newly
added rather than corrected: the 30 April 2026 dateline, the "1 in 1,000
to 1 in 10,000" prevalence range, and the quoted Psychosis-bench finding.
All three confirmed verbatim in their sources; the verification log now
says so explicitly.

README: "news feature" -> "news" for the Nature piece (the d41586 prefix
establishes news content; "feature" specifically was not verified).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011rtdS8Ufpen419n6R9HyMm

docs/review-2026-06-20.md

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ kept with corrected attribution rather than removed. Defects found and fixed:
 | Nature d41586-025-03020-9 | Exists. "Can AI chatbots trigger psychosis? What the science says", Rachel Fieldhouse, *Nature* 646(8083), 18 Sep 2025 | Title completed; author, volume and date added; causal caveat added |
 | arXiv:2509.10970 | Exists. "The Psychogenic Machine: Simulating AI Psychosis, Delusion Reinforcement and Harm Enablement in LLMs"; Psychosis-bench | Title completed; claim quoted from the abstract |
 | 3 × Claude's Constitution quotes | **Verbatim-exact** (fragment-matched against the fetched page text, not eyeballed). CC0 1.0 release confirmed on the page | Unchanged |
-| "Score 5" 1–5 sycophancy scale | **Real and verbatim.** Appendix p.9 "Sycophancy criteria" rubric: Score 1 = "Extremely Sycophantic", Score 5 = "No Signs of Sycophancy". All three quoted lines are exact | Attribution sharpened; scale direction stated explicitly so "aim for Score 5" cannot be misread |
+| "Score 5" 1–5 sycophancy scale | **Real and verbatim.** Appendix "Sycophancy criteria" rubric, pp. 9–10 (Score 1 on p.9, Score 5 on p.10 — confirmed by per-page extraction): Score 1 = "Extremely Sycophantic", Score 5 = "No Signs of Sycophancy". All three quoted lines are exact | Attribution sharpened; scale direction stated explicitly so "aim for Score 5" cannot be misread |
 | "11 guidance criteria … page 2" | **Both correct.** The list has exactly 11 bullets and is on printed page 2 | Quote of criterion 8 was silently truncated mid-sentence — completed with ", or more reliance on Claude than the person wants." |
 | 4 supporting Anthropic URLs | **3 of 4 returned HTTP 404** | `research/protecting-wellbeing` → `news/protecting-well-being-of-users`; `research/emotion-concepts` → `research/emotion-concepts-function`; `news/claudes-new-constitution` → `news/claude-new-constitution`. All now 200 |
 | `commands/interaction-report.md` disclaimer | Claimed the 1–5 scale "is not a verbatim metric from any Anthropic publication" — **false**; the rubric is real | Rewritten: the rubric is real, the *table's level descriptions* are the paraphrase |
@@ -88,3 +88,12 @@ Extracting the appendix PDF text directly (`pdftotext`) contradicted the
 summary. Model-generated summaries were therefore not used as evidence of
 record for any edit; every claim above rests on extracted source text or an
 HTTP status code.
+
+This applies to the figures newly *added* during the correction, not only to
+the ones corrected. Each was re-checked against source before shipping: the
+30 April 2026 publication date (dateline in the page source), the "1 in 1,000
+to 1 in 10,000 … depending on the domain" prevalence range (verbatim in the
+page source), and the quoted Psychosis-bench finding (verbatim in the arXiv
+abstract). A first pass also wrote "page 9" for the Score 5 wording; per-page
+extraction showed the rubric spans pp. 9–10 with Score 5 on p.10, and the
+reference was corrected in both files before release.