docs(truth): S1 truth maintenance — CHANGELOG, stack line, MCP claim, conflict semantics, 90% cut-list

Findings 4-7 from the 2026-07-02 status analysis, per the session plan (S1):
- CHANGELOG rewritten truthfully (was: 'Plan phase - no framework code yet')
- README stack line names the split GA packages, not the agent-framework meta-package
- CLAUDE.md: MCP downgraded to extension point (in-process FunctionTool is the default seam)
- Verdict conflict semantics documented as chosen (store first-write-wins per id,
  disk/wiki last-write-wins per file; full B10 taxonomy deliberately deferred)
- docs/extending.md: explicit 90%-principle cut-list (B10, B11, U12, U14, concurrent fan-out)
- .gitignore covers .trekexecute-progress-* (docs/.DS_Store was already untracked/ignored -
  the plan's git rm --cached assumption was stale; no-op)

No code behavior changed (docstring only in verdicts.py). Suite 152/4 green, mypy clean,
ruff format --check clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi

README.md

@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ The mandatory deterministic backbone (validator + budget meter + provenance) is
 - **Step 7 — async file feedback loop (wired).** `run_project(..., verdict_dir=...)` adds the long feedback timescale (target picture §3/§7): an expert/persona drops a verdict file (plain JSON — the raw output layer, §10 R2) into an inbox folder *after* a run, and a separate, later run ingests it — merged into the store *before* the Step-1 fold — so a verdict that landed out of band reaches the next hypothesis. The loop is fully resumable across runs separated in time; no live session is assumed. The system *reads* the folder, the expert/persona *writes* it (§3 role split), so `run_project` deliberately does **not** persist its own captured verdict back (that is the outbox / Step-8 concern). Ingestion is tolerant (a missing folder, foreign or half-written files are skipped, not raised) and **merges** (never replaces), preserving `run_portfolio`'s cross-project store. Reachable from the CLI via `--bundle-dir --verdict-dir`. Load-bearing: `tests/test_step7_async_loop_loadbearing.py` — a verdict dropped after run A must reach run B's prompt (run B uses a *fresh* store, so the transfer is the file loop, not in-memory carryover), with an empty-inbox control proving causality.
 - **Step 8 — gated wiki promotion (wired).** When an expert/persona **approves** an outcome, `verdicts.promote_verdict` lifts it from the raw output layer into the context layer (the OKF bundle) as a `type: verdict` concept file, navigable by the next run's `seed_store_from_bundle` (target picture §3/§6/§7). The **gate** is fail-closed: a verdict whose decision is not an approval raises `PromotionRefused` and writes/links nothing — only human/persona-approved knowledge enters the wiki, never raw agent output (self-contamination). The promotion is provenance-stamped (who approved / which experiment / when — `timestamp` is a required keyword, no wall-clock default). The OKF writer lives in `okf.py` and stays pure stdlib (D7-portable, MAF-free). **R4 = optional + gated:** `promote_verdict` is a public opt-in primitive, deliberately **not** wired into `run_project` (mirrors `write_verdict` — the system reads context; the gate/persona promotes). Two honesty limits: the promoted file is *minimal* (it carries the learning signal only as `description`/body prose — it does not reproduce the hand-authored seed's structured `realization_rate` etc.), and because the verdict id is the learning key, two approvals about the same candidate share a filename (last-write-wins, like `write_verdict`) — the wiki grows one curated file per distinct candidate, not per verdict event. Load-bearing trio (`tests/test_step8_promotion_loadbearing.py`): the gate refuses a non-approved verdict (red if the gate is removed), the approved verdict is navigable (red if `link_in_index` is detached), and the promoted signal stays out of `bundle_context` — reaching a prompt only via the gated ExpeL fold (red if a descriptive index label leaks it into the read-context).
 
+**Verdict conflict semantics (chosen, minimal).** The in-memory `VerdictStore` is **first-write-wins per verdict id** (a re-ingested duplicate is dropped, so repeated inbox merges are idempotent), while the disk layers — `write_verdict` (inbox authoring) and `promote_verdict` (wiki) — are **last-write-wins per file**. Ids are content-hashes of the candidate *features*, so "same id" means "same candidate measure", not "same verdict event". A full verdict-conflict taxonomy (B10: rejection categories + a rule for conflicting expert verdicts) is deliberately deferred until real domain experts produce conflicting verdicts.
+
 ## Offline simulation — the end-to-end proof
 
 The loop is proven end to end **offline**, with no real model. `portfolio_optimiser.simulation`
@@ -68,7 +70,7 @@ marker follows the artifact file (red the moment the persona is re-inlined).
 
 ## Stack
 
-Python ≥3.10 · MAF (`agent-framework`) · `uv`. Backend profiles: Azure/Foundry (full) + local (fallback).
+Python ≥3.10 · MAF via the split GA packages (`agent-framework-core`, `agent-framework-foundry`, `agent-framework-openai`, `agent-framework-orchestrations` — deliberately **not** the `agent-framework` meta-package; see `pyproject.toml`) · `uv`. Backend profiles: Azure/Foundry (full) + local (fallback).
 
 ## Develop