refactor(examples)!: remove two example bundles; 0.2.0 in CHANGELOG

Replaces sector-specific example material with generic, fictitious
examples: removes the two full-scale example bundles under examples/ (18
files) and every reference to them in README Contents and CHANGELOG
(neutral wording in the 0.1.0 entry; history untouched). The
falsification-reviewer worked example now uses a building-energy scenario
with the same structure, judgement (undecided) and evidence states. One
word in the author's own commentary in docs/plan/ is made generic; the
quoted source text is unchanged.

Remaining examples: bygg-energi-mikro, nav-golden-hierarchy,
nav-golden-escape.

Cuts [Unreleased] as [0.2.0] - 2026-09-23 with its link reference.
CHANGELOG.md is the only file that carries the repository version. No tag.

scripts/check-excluded-topics.py: red (180 hits / 20 files / 68 paths)
-> green (0 hits / 50 tracked paths, self-test passed), measured after
git add with the local term list in place.

Valgt 0.2.0 fordi fjerningen er brytende for konsumentene, og pre-1.0
semver bærer brudd som minor-bump. Valgt én commit for fjerning og
versjonskutt fordi CHANGELOG-teksten for begge er samme endring.

BREAKING CHANGE: consumers that vendor shared/examples/ lose the two
directories on the next subtree pull.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

skills/falsification-reviewer/references/example-evidence.json

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 {
-  "claim": "Trinnstyring i innkjoeringssonen gir 18 % lavere energibruk enn dagens fastnivaa.",
+  "claim": "Dagslysstyring i kontorlandskapet gir 18 % lavere energibruk enn dagens fastnivaa.",
   "judgement": "undecided",
   "refuter": null,
   "judgement_note": "undecided, not survived. The one concept that could have carried a refutation was unreadable, so the claim was not actually attacked -- and a claim that was not attacked has not survived. Returning survived here would convert a gap in the knowledge base into support for the claim, which is the inversion this role exists to prevent.",
   "materialisation_note": "frontmatter_verbatim is AUTHORITATIVE: it is the bytes a test materialises into a throwaway concept file before reading them back. frontmatter is its line-oriented projection and is informative only -- by construction it cannot carry a block form, which is why concept 2 has no sources key there. Materialising from frontmatter would derive state: absent and silently lose the unreadable case this example exists to demonstrate.",
   "concepts": [
     {
-      "concept_id": "kilder-tunnelbelysning-realisering",
-      "frontmatter_verbatim": "---\ntype: kilder\ntitle: Realiseringsgap ved tunnelbelysning\nverified: { by: human:aeriksen@example.org, at: 2026-08-11T09:20:00Z }\nsources: [{ id: nve-2024, resource: rapport-nve-2024.pdf, title: NVE 2024 }, { id: sintef-2023, resource: sintef-tr-a7712.pdf, title: SINTEF TR A7712 }]\nadjudication: adjudicated\n---\n",
+      "concept_id": "kilder-kontorbelysning-realisering",
+      "frontmatter_verbatim": "---\ntype: kilder\ntitle: Realiseringsgap ved kontorbelysning\nverified: { by: human:aeriksen@example.org, at: 2026-08-11T09:20:00Z }\nsources: [{ id: nve-2024, resource: rapport-nve-2024.pdf, title: NVE 2024 }, { id: sintef-2023, resource: sintef-tr-a7712.pdf, title: SINTEF TR A7712 }]\nadjudication: adjudicated\n---\n",
       "frontmatter": {
         "type": "kilder",
-        "title": "Realiseringsgap ved tunnelbelysning",
+        "title": "Realiseringsgap ved kontorbelysning",
         "verified": "{ by: human:aeriksen@example.org, at: 2026-08-11T09:20:00Z }",
         "sources": "[{ id: nve-2024, resource: rapport-nve-2024.pdf, title: NVE 2024 }, { id: sintef-2023, resource: sintef-tr-a7712.pdf, title: SINTEF TR A7712 }]",
         "adjudication": "adjudicated"
@@ -28,11 +28,11 @@
       "note": "State is present and the tier is not unverified, so the verdict may rest on this concept. The tier derives as human-reviewed because the verified actor carries the human: prefix; a bare actor would have derived machine-confirmed, which also clears the threshold."
     },
     {
-      "concept_id": "tiltak-trinnstyring-innkjoringssone",
-      "frontmatter_verbatim": "---\ntype: tiltak\ntitle: Trinnstyring i innkjoeringssonen\nsources:\n  - resource: leverandoerblad-2025.pdf\n    title: Leverandoerblad 2025\n  - resource: driftslogg-2025.csv\n    title: Driftslogg 2025\n---\n",
+      "concept_id": "tiltak-dagslysstyring-kontorlandskap",
+      "frontmatter_verbatim": "---\ntype: tiltak\ntitle: Dagslysstyring i kontorlandskapet\nsources:\n  - resource: leverandoerblad-2025.pdf\n    title: Leverandoerblad 2025\n  - resource: driftslogg-2025.csv\n    title: Driftslogg 2025\n---\n",
       "frontmatter": {
         "type": "tiltak",
-        "title": "Trinnstyring i innkjoeringssonen"
+        "title": "Dagslysstyring i kontorlandskapet"
       },
       "evidence": {
         "state": "unreadable",
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
       "note": "Two independent reasons to discount, reported separately rather than merged. The sources value is written as a block list, which is not the accepted form: the state is unreadable, the shape is named, and two entries were seen. Independently, no verified key means the tier derives as unverified, and no adjudication key means unknown -- not proposed. Discounted, not rejected: the concept remains readable and its prose was read."
     }
   ],
-  "ledger_note": "tiltak-trinnstyring-innkjoringssone's driftslogg entry would have been the first place to look for a refutation of the 18 % figure. It is reported as (unreadable, block-sequence, 2) rather than as absent evidence, because 'written in a form I could not read' and 'not there' point at different repairs -- and because it was unreadable rather than exhausted, the judgement is undecided rather than survived.",
+  "ledger_note": "tiltak-dagslysstyring-kontorlandskap's driftslogg entry would have been the first place to look for a refutation of the 18 % figure. It is reported as (unreadable, block-sequence, 2) rather than as absent evidence, because 'written in a form I could not read' and 'not there' point at different repairs -- and because it was unreadable rather than exhausted, the judgement is undecided rather than survived.",
   "denominator": {
     "concepts_considered": 7,
     "concepts_consulted": 2,