feat(row6): a proposal whose approach declared no requirement is unsupported

Stress round 6 validated three falsification arms, and every validated
approach rested only on run-level declarations nobody can attribute to one
approach. declare_requirement now takes a required approach_id (a mandate
id or own-proposal; an unknown id is refused naming the valid ones), and a
ValidatedProposal whose approach has neither a mandate requirement nor a
declaration under its own id becomes validator.Unsupported - a Rejection
subclass carrying the validator's own ruling, reported as `unsupported` in
coverage, the outcome artefact, the settlement and the judge, and never
counted or summed. The rule is active whenever the debate held the
declaration tool, the micro base included; the road and pre-pass paths are
untouched. Declaration quality is not judged, so the rule can be satisfied
by declaring any document the run read.

The v1 gate's row 6 probes pass; its artefact half reads IKKE MÅLT because
stress round 6 predates approach-addressed declarations, and IKKE MÅLT is
never green - it fails the exit code.

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

README.md

@@ -495,9 +495,17 @@ when the seam is detached, so the loop cannot silently degrade into theater.
   **Naming the requirement that binds a direction.** Whoever navigates a knowledge base — the
   exploration's hypothesiser and, since the debate started navigating, the proposer — is asked to
   name the ONE requirement that binds the direction it commits to, and to declare it with
-  `declare_requirement(bundle_id, path, ref)` after reading it. A declaration naming a document
-  the run never opened is **refused by name** (`RequirementNotRead`) and comes back as a turn the
-  model can correct by going and reading it; nothing is recorded until it has. A marked hypothesis
+  `declare_requirement(bundle_id, path, ref, approach_id)` after reading it. A declaration naming
+  a document the run never opened is **refused by name** (`RequirementNotRead`) and comes back as a
+  turn the model can correct by going and reading it; nothing is recorded until it has.
+  `approach_id` names the approach the requirement binds — one of the mandate's ids, or
+  `own-proposal` — and an id the run was not commissioned with is refused with the valid ones named
+  (`UnknownApproach`). **A proposal whose approach declared nothing cannot be `validated`:** when
+  the debate held the declaration tool, a candidate whose numbers pass every stage but whose
+  approach has neither a requirement written into the mandate nor a declaration filed under its
+  own id is reported `unsupported` — not rejected (the numbers held), not validated (nothing was
+  named as its ground), never counted or summed. The declaration's *quality* is not judged; a run
+  can satisfy the rule by declaring any document it read, and that is a known weakness. A marked hypothesis
   therefore carries `"requirement": {"path": ..., "ref": ...}`, or an explicit `null` together with
   `"why_none"` — a base that holds no requirement for a direction is a finding worth stating, and
   the field is never simply omitted. Where an approach carries one, the proposer's prompt names it