fix(linkedin-studio): S29c terminology-scrub — "thought leadership" → neutral (references/)

Third sub-pass of the S29 plugin-wide terminology scrub: the banned brand phrase
"thought leadership" (FORM A) removed from the reference-doc surface — the largest pass
(2x S29a/S29b). 34 edits across 15 reference files. Vocabulary consistent with S29a/S29b:
"thought leadership angle(s)" -> "content angle(s)"; "thought leadership" (positioning/practice)
-> "authority ..."; content-type labels -> "authority content / authority posts"; the whole
"Value Test" family -> "Authority Value Test".

Established cross-pass equivalents closed: glossary:229 "Thought Leadership Value Test" ->
"Authority Value Test" (closes the S29b cross-directory naming gap); glossary:29 "8 universal
thought leadership angles" -> "content angles"; engagement-frameworks:137 "Standard Thought
Leadership Structure" -> "Standard Post Structure" (matches S29a post:98).

S29e filename locked this session: thought-leadership-angles.md -> content-angles.md (operator-
chosen). The canonical file's in-file title/headers scrubbed now for consistency (H1 ->
"# Content Angles"; "## The Authority Value Test"; "### Step 3: Test For Authority Value");
the file rename + all 20 pointers remain S29e (atomic).

Judgment-calls (operator-approved): thought-leadership-angles:212 "disguised as thought
leadership" -> "expertise" (S29b vocab); linkedin-formats:295 -> "Text-based content" (avoids
authority...authority echo); linkedin-visual-style:3 -> "For building authority,"; ai-content-
framework:380 "main LinkedIn thought leadership skill" -> "content skill" (avoids awkward
"authority skill"). Kept by design: video-strategy-guide:429 ironic quote; video-strategy-
guide:532 "TL;DW" false positive (too long, didn't watch).

Scope (operator-locked, inherits S29a/S29b): FORM A only. FORM B ("thought leader(s)" as role,
references = 4) untouched. The 3 thought-leadership-angles.md filename pointers in references/
deferred to S29e.

Verify: FORM A in references/ = only the kept ironic quote (video:429); canonical file in-file
FORM A = NONE; FORM B unchanged (4); filename pointers unchanged (3); no anchor links to changed
headers; gate 81/0/0; counts 29/19/26/6 + v0.5.0 unchanged.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016qgzo6rxthw7KuxHjn5vyE

references/thought-leadership-angles.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
-# Thought Leadership Angles
+# Content Angles
 
-This document provides frameworks for identifying thought leadership angles from any type of content or context.
+This document provides frameworks for identifying content angles from any type of content or context.
 
 ## Core Principle
 
-Thought leadership isn't about what you know—it's about **how you help others see differently**. Any content can become thought leadership by finding the right angle.
+Authority isn't about what you know—it's about **how you help others see differently**. Any content can build authority by finding the right angle.
 
 ## 8 Universal Angles
 
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ What do you have?
 - How should we think about this differently? (Reframe)
 - What does this mean for the future? (Future Implication)
 
-### Step 3: Test For Thought Leadership Value
+### Step 3: Test For Authority Value
 
 A good angle must pass at least two of these tests:
 - **Perspective shift:** Does it make people see things differently?
@@ -209,10 +209,10 @@ Concrete starter questions and example hooks per industry. When the user's indus
 - **Echo chamber:** Repeating what everyone already says
 - **Humble brag:** Disguised self-promotion without insight
 - **Vague wisdom:** Platitudes without specifics
-- **Pure promotion:** Marketing disguised as thought leadership
+- **Pure promotion:** Marketing disguised as expertise
 - **Borrowed authority:** Citing research without adding perspective
 
-## The Thought Leadership Test
+## The Authority Value Test
 
 Before posting, ask:
 1. Does this help someone make a better decision?