fix(lexicon,docs): retract the claim that the guard's port cites severity.mjs

The guard asked twice which file:line carried it. Tracing it produced an
uncomfortable answer: no file of ours measured it. The claim arrived from
llm-security (coord 20260809T201048Z) and was written down here as a commons
finding in three places.

Measured against the guard's own tree: severity.mjs has never appeared in
src/llm_ingestion_guard/injection_lexicon.json at any point in that file's
history (git log -S: no commits), and at 0bf0729 - the commit our manifest
pins - the only tree-wide occurrence is docs/PLAN.md:114, correctly about the
report module. Their only lexicon source statement is the note at line 3, and
it names injection-patterns.mjs. The right file.

No detection data moves. hybrid severity is still high, still sourced to
injection-patterns.mjs:274-281 at b0de0ca; severity.mjs still has zero
occurrences of the four pattern arrays, re-measured today. Only the sentence
about the other repository falls.

Marked in place, not edited away. The claim survived review because it came
bundled with a correct measurement of the same question - a wrong citation to
a right value, which is exactly what the field it lived in was written to warn
against.

lexicon/injection-lexicon.json 0.5.0 -> 0.5.1 (provenance metadata only).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DWKkmKQBsWtrkod4MusUBC

docs/lexicon-port-divergence.md

@@ -166,12 +166,29 @@ differences in the table above are closed.
 
 The part worth keeping is where the value lives. It is not a field. The engine assigns it by
 pushing `HYBRID_PATTERNS` matches straight into the `high` bucket at
-`injection-patterns.mjs:274-281`. The guard's port cites `severity.mjs` — a file that
-contains **no injection-family severity at all**. So the guard held the right value behind a
-citation that leads nowhere, and a reviewer following that citation to check the number would
-have found nothing and drawn no conclusion. Refusing to copy it was the right call for a
-reason better than the one given at the time: not merely that a port is second-hand, but that
-this particular port could not have read what it claimed to.
+`injection-patterns.mjs:274-281`. `severity.mjs` contains **no injection-family severity at
+all** — re-measured 2026-08-10 at `b0de0ca`: `CRITICAL_PATTERNS`, `HIGH_PATTERNS`,
+`MEDIUM_PATTERNS` and `HYBRID_PATTERNS` appear there zero times.
+
+~~**The guard's port cites `severity.mjs`.** So the guard held the right value behind a
+citation that leads nowhere, and refusing to copy it was right for a better reason than the
+one given at the time: this particular port could not have read what it claimed to.~~
+**Retracted 2026-08-10. The guard's port cites the right file.** This paragraph was never
+measured here; it restated an assertion received from `llm-security`
+(`20260809T201048Z`: *"Guardens port satte riktig verdi, men kunne ikke ha lest den fra fila
+den oppgir"*) as a commons finding. Measured against the guard's own tree: `severity.mjs`
+has **never** appeared in `src/llm_ingestion_guard/injection_lexicon.json` at any point in
+that file's history (`git log -S` returns no commits), and at `0bf0729` — the commit
+`conformance/manifest.json` pins — the only tree-wide occurrence is `docs/PLAN.md:114`,
+correctly attributing the *report* module to `output.mjs` + `severity.mjs`. The guard's only
+source statement for the lexicon is the `note` at `injection_lexicon.json:3`, and it names
+`injection-patterns.mjs`.
+
+Refusing to copy the value was still the right call — but for the plain reason, that a port
+is second-hand evidence, not for the sharper one claimed above. The sharper reason was itself
+a wrong citation to a right value, which is the defect this section was written to warn
+about. It survived here because it arrived from a repository that had measured the *other*
+half of the claim correctly, and the correct half carried the incorrect half past review.
 
 ## What this does not show