fix(ms-ai-architect): idx-27 scope-addendum — orkestrerings-FAQ-ens rekkevidde skilt fra generative answers

Adversarielt gjenlest resolution avdekket at BEGGE reparerte påstander ble
skrevet inn under overskriften «Microsoft Copilot Studio» uten kvalifikator,
mens FAQ-ens egen scope-linje er «generative orchestration». Samme utvidings-
klasse som idx-27 ble reist for — reprodusert av sin egen reparasjon.

Sjekket mot dokumentasjonen, og de to påstandene falt fra hverandre:
- bekreftelses-sikringen står KUN i orkestrerings-FAQ-en → kvalifikator lagt til
- standardmeldingen står ordrett også i faqs-generative-answers, med bredere
  ramme → raden beholder ingen kvalifikator, og den andre FAQ-en er lagt til
  som sitert kilde så lesningen kan etterprøves

Standing: grounded-as-cited, ikke established-for-all-agents.
Kø: 6 åpne / 6 resolved. Suite 1047/1047.

[skip-docs]

docs/r11-pilot-results.md

@@ -1081,6 +1081,31 @@ above. idx-26e was found by a **cross-file grep run before the edit** — the ch
 asks whether a rename here creates an inconsistency there. It did not, but it found a
 mirror the corpus was not known to contain.
 
+**A scope defect caught in the resolution itself, before the closing line.** An
+adversarial read of the idx-27 write-up asked a question the repair had not: the FAQ's
+own scope line reads "the AI impact of **generative orchestration** for custom agents
+built in Copilot Studio", and both repaired claims had been written into a section
+headed *Microsoft Copilot Studio* with no qualifier. That is the widening class idx-27
+was raised for, reproduced by its own repair — §9.7's pattern for a third time, and
+§9.8's dropped-qualifier pattern for a second.
+
+**Re-checked against the docs rather than reasoned about, and the two claims came
+apart.** The maker-confirmation safeguard occurs *only* in the orchestration FAQ, in a
+list about tool execution — orchestration-scoped, and the bullet now says so. The
+default transparency message occurs there **and, verbatim, in `faqs-generative-answers`**
+under the same protections question, framed there as a general best practice rather
+than an orchestration feature. Two independent feature FAQs stating it without a
+feature qualifier is why the Built-in disclosures row keeps none; the second FAQ was
+added as a cited source so a reader can check that reasoning instead of trusting it.
+Neither page is a Copilot-Studio-wide statement of record, so the standing is
+**grounded-as-cited, not established-for-all-agents**.
+
+The transferable part is not the fix. **A repair inherits the defect class it was
+raised against unless something explicitly re-asks the question of the repair.** The
+edit was correct on the axis the entry named (modality) and wrong on the axis it did
+not (scope), and the resolution prose read as complete precisely because it answered
+the named axis well.
+
 **Queue state: 6 open, 6 resolved.** Suite 1047/1047.
 
 ## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified