docs: remove what this repository published about a consumer's corpus

Operator decision 2026-09-21: nothing from that consumer's collection goes out
on the public remote. The NAME stays where it is already published -- it is a
consumer of this library, named as such, and removing it would mean rewriting
published history, which this repository does not do. What goes is everything
that describes their CONTENT.

Removed across README, CLAUDE.md, CHANGELOG, four dated reports, the
consumption contract, three source modules and three test modules: their
corpus's document and page counts, the concept count of a bundle built from
it, the byte figures of a payload built from it, the question and fasit counts
and recorded score of their evaluation set, a bundle id with two content refs,
an order id naming them, and a path into their repository.

Kept, because the argument survives without the corpus: RATIOS and
percentages. A ratio is the finding -- a withheld list that is 65.5 % of a
payload is a defect at any corpus size -- and it discloses nothing about how
large anyone's collection is. Where a claim lost its denominator it now SAYS
so rather than quietly reading as unmeasured: the gate-refusal limitation in
the README states that the corpus and its counts are deliberately withheld and
points the reader at their own build, which is the number that binds them
anyway.

One integrity pin is kept and named here rather than left to be found: the
retrieval gate still pins that set by sha256, because the pin is what refuses
a self-written file in the right shape, and a checksum discloses nothing about
what it checksums. Its recorded SCORE is gone -- that was their figure about
their own corpus, and the row now says so instead of restating it.

The known-positive constants move with the contract document, as they must.
Suite green, 2372 passed.

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

tests/test_okf_consume.py

@@ -2742,11 +2742,11 @@ def _ranked_fixture(question: str) -> list[tuple[okf_consume.Concept, float, int
 
 
 def test_the_default_payload_reports_the_withheld_as_counts_and_near_misses() -> None:
-    """Measured 2026-09-20 on a 2313-concept bundle: `withheld` held 2 305
-    entries = 186 440 B = 65.5 % of the written file, and NONE of it counted
-    against the budget the payload reports. A reader was handed 239 658 bytes
-    the budget line did not know about, to learn 2 305 ids they could do
-    nothing with.
+    """Measured 2026-09-20 on a large real bundle: the flat `withheld` list
+    came to 65.5 % of the written file, one entry per withheld concept, and
+    NONE of it counted against the budget the payload reports. A reader was
+    handed most of a file the budget line did not know about, to learn one
+    concept id per withheld concept with nothing beside it.
 
     The replacement states the same facts in the units a reader can act on:
     the total, the count per rule, and the near misses BY NAME.
@@ -2770,7 +2770,7 @@ def test_the_default_payload_reports_the_withheld_as_counts_and_near_misses() ->
 def test_a_near_miss_is_named_so_a_reader_can_ask_for_it() -> None:
     """Every entry carries the title and the document, not just the id.
 
-    `--withheld-titles` bought the title for all 2 305 entries and was off by
+    `--withheld-titles` bought the title for all one entry per withheld concept and was off by
     measurement (+37.9 % on N500). At twenty entries the same field costs
     nothing and is the one thing that makes the list usable: a reader who sees
     a near miss by name can ask for it.

tests/test_working_method.py

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 """The generic skill states a WORKING METHOD and an ANSWER FORM, and is default.
 
-Measured by the operator on a 2313-concept bundle built from one project's own
+Measured by the operator on a large real bundle
 documentation, 2026-09-20: the generated skill was an audit contract. All the
 discipline sat on the accounting -- markings, denominators, budget lines -- and
 none of it on understanding the question, searching again, or writing one