docs(okf-v0.2): requirement 1 re-sized -- the emitter does not change at all

U4 escalated tag requirement 1: real v0.2 frontmatter is block YAML, and "emit
accepts a block-list value" had been scoped against a list of strings when
upstream's canonical sources is a list of five-key mappings. Re-sized against
the code rather than against its tests, and the answer runs the other way.

Measured: emit (profiles.py:197) takes Mapping[str, str] and renders one
"key: value" line per key through _render (:211), verbatim but for
source_query's whitespace collapse; _is_legal_value (:97) admits a string or a
non-empty list of strings, never mappings; the only production call sites are
materialize.py:166 and inbox.py:129, both passing dict[str, str].

The earlier "discharged" note read the validator correctly and drew too much
from it. But the gap it left is not U4's either: A-E4 owes at least a resource,
not upstream's five keys, and a manifest source has no author, no last_modified,
and no bundle-internal resource in upstream's sense. A field with no reader is
not written. So the question was never how large a YAML emitter we need -- it
was which form sources takes.

Chosen: sources: [{ id: <id>, resource: <ref> }], the same inline flow form A-E3
already chose for generated. It keeps parse_frontmatter line-oriented, which
matters because a block list pollutes that parser with false keys (- id,
resource) -- the failure mode documented for po-claude -- and _is_ingest_owned,
the one piece of this tag we called risky, reads THROUGH that parser. The block
form would force the collision gate and the parser to be hardened in the same
session. It also satisfies commons' section 5 single-line MUST, so the DEFAULT
seam U4 opened stays closed, and section 11 asks for parseable YAML, not block
YAML. The deviation from upstream's emitted shape is real and is recorded as a
decision, like U1, not as compliance we may claim.

Consequences: requirement 1 is smaller than both earlier sizings -- zero emitter
work -- and D1a drops off the critical path to v0.5.0a1. A-E4 is corrected from
"block list" to the flow form before the pilot receives it; a test spec that
outlives its decision is the A-E6 defect class.

Swept the same defect class while here: the TDD order and three other passages
wrote okf_version: "0.2" QUOTED, contradicting A-E6, which is precisely the form
catalog measured as exit 1. All five now unquoted.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01A2aKJxLejT9S8jYwoZ9fut

docs/plan/execution-order.md

@@ -127,8 +127,8 @@ repo rather than by a second consumer, which is the better test of it.
 **Order inside the track.** Characterization and audit first — they add tests and
 change no behavior. Then the frontmatter model that can carry block lists
 (`sources`, multi-verifier `verified`), then the profile, then the golden
-fixtures that make the support claim testable. The `okf_version: "0.2"`
-declaration comes last, once the shape has earned it. Commons' answer on
+fixtures that make the support claim testable. The `okf_version: 0.2`
+declaration comes last — **unquoted**, per A-E6 — once the shape has earned it. Commons' answer on
 `DEFAULT`'s `generated` runs in parallel and no longer blocks: the additive
 design took it off the critical path.