Promote the Workflow Manifest Declarations and the Carried-Wording Fixes

.github/copilot-instructions.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Summarized for VS Code's generators. The full rules, rationale, and examples are
 
 ## Reviewing Carried Fleet Content
 
-Several of this repository's governance files are carried from a shared template and kept in sync across a fleet of sibling repositories, among them `AGENTS.md`, `CODESTYLE.md`, `WORKFLOW.md`, this file, and the `repo-config/` rulesets. Most of `GOVERNANCE.md` is universal fleet law: every section that states a rule, as opposed to the two that describe this repository's own directory tree and devcontainer, is byte-locked and verified by an automated byte-for-byte match against the template canonical, not by line-by-line review. `AGENTS.md` is the thin router and carries three byte-locked sections of its own, with no repository-specific ones.
+Several of this repository's governance files are carried from a shared template and kept in sync across a fleet of sibling repositories, among them `AGENTS.md`, `CODESTYLE.md`, `WORKFLOW.md`, this file, and the `repo-config/` rulesets. Most of `GOVERNANCE.md` is universal fleet law: every section that states a rule, as opposed to the two that describe this repository's own directory tree and devcontainer, is byte-locked and verified by an automated byte-for-byte match against the template canonical, not by line-by-line review. `AGENTS.md` is the thin router and carries three byte-locked sections of its own, `Fleet Bootstrap`, `Context and Delegation Discipline`, and `Where the Rules Live`. Everything above the first of those headings is this repository's own prose, saying what this repository is and which local doc owns which subject, and it is editable like any other repository content.
 
 Three constraints follow when reviewing that content.
 
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no
 The sentence tail after the first spelling reports how many comments the round raised and appears in four wordings. It is not coverage, so it is not part of what has to be recognized, and the counts are. Read them into three verdicts and two exemptions:
 
 - **Counts equal** - the round read the whole diff. This is the clean pass.
-- **Counts unequal** - files in the diff have no review at all. Do **not** treat a re-request as the remedy: measured over four pull requests and seven rounds on this repository, every partial round stayed partial at the identical ratio and no round ever recovered, so re-requesting spends a round and changes nothing. Splitting works where it applies and does not apply to a promotion, whose head is `develop`. **The file table in the body does not tell you which file went unread**, and it looks as though it should, which is why it is written down here: measured over 348 review bodies on this repository and 121 on another in this fleet, that table names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, so a table naming every changed file is what a full round carries too and contradicts nothing. One round of the seven is the exception, stating 16 of 17 and naming 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`, and `status` names an omitted file only in that shape, where the table is short by exactly what the counts leave unread and names nothing outside the diff. Treat that as a lead to check rather than a verdict, one round here naming `GOVENANCE.md`, a path no diff carries. Report the state and hand the merge decision to the maintainer.
+- **Counts unequal** - files in the diff have no review at all. Do **not** treat a re-request as the remedy: measured over four pull requests and seven rounds on this repository, every partial round stayed partial at the identical ratio and no round ever recovered, so re-requesting spends a round and changes nothing. Splitting works where it applies and does not apply to a promotion, whose head is `develop`. **The file table in the body does not tell you which file went unread**, and it looks as though it should, which is why it is written down here: measured over 348 review bodies on this repository and 121 on another in this fleet, that table names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, so a table naming every changed file is what a full round carries too and contradicts nothing. One round of the seven is the exception, stating 16 of 17 and naming 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`, and `status` names an omitted file only in that shape, where the table is short by exactly what the counts leave unread and names nothing outside the diff. Treat that as a lead to check rather than a verdict, one round here naming `GOVENANCE.md`, the reviewer's own spelling and a path no diff carries. Report the state and hand the merge decision to the maintainer.
 - **Coverage-shaped and unreadable** - the remedy is to fix the reader, not to read past it. The vetted spellings live in `scripts/pr_review.py` and here, and they stay in step because a case reads them out of this file.
 - **Exempt: a body stating no coverage at all.** 28 of those 332 bodies are an overview and a change list and nothing more. That shape is current, interleaves with the counted one throughout, and one pull request carries both across its two rounds, so treating it as a failure cries wolf on about one review in twelve and teaches an agent to work around the gate. It reads as `coverage=unstated`, never as a pass and never as a failure.
 - **Exempt: a refusal.** It carries no coverage line by design, and the refusal rule above has already classified it. Read it here as well and every refusal grows a spurious second failure on top of the one that names its remedy.

TODO.md

@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ One pull request, after a survey, deciding whether anything stands between this
   - **Checked** - `develop` at `674a27a` on 2026-08-08, measured over 348 Copilot review bodies on the newest 120 pull requests here and 121 on the fleet's Blog repository, each read against the pull request's own changed-file list rather than against its counts alone.
   - **Settled** - The reviewer does name a file list, and the caveat saying otherwise was wrong. It is a `| File | Description |` table carried by 91 of the 348 bodies, and every table row in the corpus belongs to one of those tables.
   - **Settled** - The table names the unread file on exactly one round of the seven, which states 16 of 17 and names 16, omitting `GOVERNANCE.md`. That round is also the only evidence on record that the unread file is a real file rather than an artifact of counting.
-  - **Settled** - It cannot be read as coverage anywhere else. It names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, including all seven partials on Blog, while one round here states 61 of 62 and names 50, another states 33 of 33 and names 32, and a third names `GOVENANCE.md`, a path no diff carries. A reading identical under both outcomes discriminates neither.
+  - **Settled** - It cannot be read as coverage anywhere else. It names the whole changed set on partial and fully covered rounds alike, including all seven partials on Blog, while one round here states 61 of 62 and names 50, another states 33 of 33 and names 32, and a third names `GOVENANCE.md`, the reviewer's own spelling and a path no diff carries. A reading identical under both outcomes discriminates neither.
   - **Settled** - Three of the four partials here carry their table on the round before a push, describing the diff that push replaced, so the comparison is head-scoped like the counts and reports no table rather than a stale list of unreviewed files.
   - **Open** - Whether a partial round is worth escalating to GitHub at all. One named file on one round is a starting point rather than the pattern an escalation needs.
   - **Settled** - It is durable rather than flaky. Four pull requests and seven rounds (#476, #479, #592, and the #609 promotion), and **every later round repeated the identical ratio**. A re-request has never cleared one, so the remedy the digest first stated was wrong and now says so.

reports/divergences.md

@@ -23,8 +23,6 @@ Generated by `python3 spec/fidelity_honesty.py --report` - do not hand-edit. Cur
 - **TODO.md** (manifest gap, carried by Blog, HomeAutomation-Config) - A repo's own running backlog, which STANDUP.md section 2 names as one of the four declared destinations for repo-specific content. It is advisory and required by no selector, so the manifest deliberately does not declare it and a repo's copy is its own content rather than a carry.
 - **.husky/pre-commit** (manifest gap, carried by AudioCleaner, LanguageTags, MediaTools, NxWitness, PhotoCleaner, PlexCleaner, Utilities) - A path collision rather than a carry. Each repo's hook runs that repo's own language formatters, and the hub's runs the doc gates, so the seven downstream copies share the path and none of the content: LanguageTags and Utilities run language formatting and style with no Docker, PlexCleaner runs CSharpier and dotnet format, and the hub runs prose_lint.py and repo_gate.py. Verified by reading the downstream copies on 2026-08-10.
 - **scripts/README.md** (manifest gap, carried by KiCadLibrary) - A path collision rather than a carry. KiCadLibrary's copy documents its own KiCad tooling (common.py, verify_library.py, build_library.py) beside the scripts it describes, and shares nothing with the hub's fleet-gate documentation. Verified by reading it on 2026-08-10. scripts/ is a generic path, so a repo with its own tooling directory matches this check without carrying anything of the hub's.
-- **.github/workflows/publish-release.yml** (manifest gap, carried by Blog, ESPHome-Config, ESPHome-NonRoot, Financial-Modeling, HomeAssistant-Config, HomeAutomation-Config, KiCadLibrary, LanguageTags, MediaTools, NxWitness, PhotoCleaner, PlexCleaner, Utilities, VSCode-Server-DotNetCore, Vantage-Config, aiopurpleair, homeassistant-purpleair) - A path collision rather than a carry, settled 2026-08-15 by reading every cataloged repo's copy on its ground-truth branch (18 copies read, the hub's own included, so 17 downstream repos carry one and 4 carry none). Each repo's publisher is its own. The job keys are per-repo (publish in 15 of the 18, against create-release on homeassistant-purpleair, publish-pypi on aiopurpleair, and an eight-job orchestration on NxWitness), and the triggers run from dispatch-only through dispatch plus schedule plus a paths-filtered push. No interface contract the schema can express fits that spread, and no appliesTo selector separates the carriers from the four that carry none, since both source-only and csharp+console repos sit on either side. What the file must honor is declared elsewhere and needs no second entry: build-release-task.yml carries the interface contract for the release path, and WORKFLOW.md's D2.3, D4.1, and D7.1 are read by hand per AUDIT.md section 5.
-- **.github/workflows/validate-task.yml** (manifest gap, carried by AudioCleaner, Blog, ESPHome-NonRoot, Financial-Modeling, HomeAutomation-Config, LanguageTags, MediaTools, NxWitness, PhotoCleaner, PlexCleaner, Utilities, VSCode-Server-DotNetCore, aiopurpleair) - As publish-release.yml, and settled in the same 2026-08-15 read (14 copies read, the hub's own included, so 13 downstream repos carry one and 8 carry none). Every carrier is on: workflow_call over a per-repo job list, in six distinct shapes across the 14 (lint alone on 3, unit-test plus lint on 5, validate alone on 2, lint plus test plus docs on 2, compile-test plus lint on 1, and unit-test plus lint plus codegen-drift on 1), so the only thing every copy shares is the trigger, which no contract field states. The 8 that carry none inline their validation instead, and no selector separates them, since source-only repos again sit on either side. The fixed part is the required check the aggregator reports, which test-pull-request.yml declares at interface fidelity and the ruleset binds by name.
 
 ## Untriaged - add a disposition to `spec/divergences.json`