fix(ms-ai-architect): G7 idx-27b + idx-26f lukket — scorecard-punkt 2/5 til kildeordlyd, transparensmelding kopiert

idx-27b: Moenster 3-bulleten paastod en 'Powered by AI'-disclosure; erstattet med
den allerede ratifiserte standardmeldingen fra Copilot Studio-seksjonen, grep-
verifisert byte-for-byte. Ingen audience-tiering lagt til (scope-klassen fra 66fb567).

idx-26f: punkt 2 og 5 omskrevet til kildens ordlyd i idx-26d-dialekten framfor ren
sletting av navngitt spesifisitet - den minimale diffen ville etterlatt 'Dataset
statistics' (ogsaa ukildet) og 'across sensitive groups' (gammel dialekt), og dermed
arvet begge defektklassene. Form (b), stempel-innsnevring i fila, avvist av operatoer.

idx-26d-resolutionens sluttklausul supersedert med datert tillegg; idx-27c/27d
bokfoert for to naboer som ikke kunne repareres ved kopi.

Ko: 6 aapne / 8 resolved. Suite 1047/1047.

docs/r11-pilot-results.md

@@ -1108,6 +1108,77 @@ the named axis well.
 
 **Queue state: 6 open, 6 resolved.** Suite 1047/1047.
 
+### 9.10 idx-27b and idx-26f closed — the minimal diff was the unsound one
+
+Both entries lived in `transparency-documentation-standards.md`, so they were taken
+together and grep-checked as a pair, the same way idx-26b/26c and idx-26d/27 were.
+
+**idx-27b was the near-mechanical one and behaved like it.** The Mønster 3
+"Azure implementasjon" bullet asserted a Copilot Studio `"Powered by AI"` disclosure —
+the same imprecision idx-27 had just removed from the Copilot Studio section. Because
+idx-27 had already ratified a replacement wording a few hundred lines below, the repair
+was a *copy of a ratified formulation*, not a fresh judgement: the bullet now carries
+the standard transparency message verbatim, and the quote was grep-verified
+byte-for-byte against that row **after** the edit. Hand-copying a verbatim string is
+where quote-style drift enters, and nothing in the suite would have caught it.
+
+What was deliberately not carried over matters more than what was. The bullet sits
+under an *audience-layering* table; the ratified row sits under *Built-in disclosures*.
+Restating the claim in layered-disclosure vocabulary would have added reach the source
+does not state — which is exactly the scope class caught in `66fb567` one session
+earlier. The repair for a scope defect is the first place that scope defect can recur.
+
+**idx-26f carried a real choice, and the obvious form of it was wrong.** Items 2 and 5
+of the scorecard enumeration carried specificity the live source does not state, under
+a **Confidence:** Verified stamp. The apparent repair — delete the named specificity —
+does not survive contact with the source:
+
+| Item | Anchor | What deleting only the named specificity leaves | Why that fails |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 2 | `... across sensitive groups (gender, ethnicity, age)` | `... across sensitive groups` | Drops the *you-choose-them* agency the source states ("target values **you set** for **your desired** sensitive groups"), and strands item 2 in the pre-idx-26d dialect while items 1/3/6/7 now carry "du har satt" |
+| 5 | `Dataset statistics, missing values, outlier analysis` | `Dataset statistics` | The source says only "shows you characteristics of your data" — `Dataset statistics` is *also* unstated, and unlike item 4 this entry never adjudicated it checked-and-clear |
+
+So the minimal diff would have re-created both defects it was raised against: unsourced
+content under the stamp, and the mixed dialect idx-26d had just canonicalised — **in the
+file idx-26d had just canonicalised it in.** Both descriptions were instead rewritten to
+the source's own wording in the established dialect. Item 4 was left untouched, per the
+entry's own adjudication that it is a recognisable paraphrase.
+
+**Form (b) — narrowing the stamp's stated reach inside the file — was put to the
+operator and declined.** The entry's own text supplies the reason: the stamp is honest
+today *only because* idx-26d's resolution writes down an exception, and removing the
+need for that written-down exception is what closing the entry means. Annotating the
+file instead relocates the annotation from the queue into the corpus; it does not close
+the defect as booked.
+
+**A closure can falsify prose in a tracked artefact.** idx-26d's resolution ended
+"Items 2, 4 and 5 descriptions are NOT covered by that widening" — true when written,
+false the moment idx-26f closed, and checked by nothing. Same class as the false
+"linje 129" locator caught last session. It was handled by appending a dated
+supersession clause rather than rewriting the original, and idx-26f's resolution now
+states positively what the stamp covers, so no exception has to be written down
+anywhere for it to stay honest.
+
+**Two neighbours booked, not swept: idx-27c and idx-27d.** The Foundry agent-transparency
+bullet asserts a `"This chatbot uses AI"` embeddable component; the scenario 1 tooling
+line names a "Copilot Studio disclosure widget" where this same file documents a
+pre-built "AI disclosure" *topic*. Neither can be repaired by copying the ratified
+Copilot Studio wording — one needs its own live fetch against Foundry docs, the other is
+intra-file name drift inside a worked scenario rather than a source-attribution error.
+Booking them was not optional bookkeeping: idx-27b's resolution *asserts* they exist, so
+leaving them unwritten would have planted the same false-reference defect this section
+documents catching.
+
+Cross-file grep before editing put all three replaced strings at zero occurrences
+elsewhere in the corpus.
+
+**The transferable part: the cheapest true edit is rarely the smallest diff.** A repair
+scoped to exactly the words an entry names will silently adopt whatever unmeasured
+content sits beside them — and adoption under a verification stamp is indistinguishable,
+to a reader, from verification.
+
+**Queue state: 6 open, 8 resolved.** Suite 1047/1047.
+
 ## Appendix A — the 15 admitted proposals, hand-verified
 
 Every proposal the classifier (§4 + context condition) admitted over the whole