docs(adr): say which wizard decisions the plan marked for the owner

The section "Resolved while planning the build" now says that the plan
marked G1, G2, G4, G5, G7, G11 and G19 as needing the owner or the
service steps, that they were taken under the standing instruction like
the rest, and which of them keep a condition. The sentence about which
audit findings count against the accessibility criterion gives the
plan as its source and leaves the judgement to the reviewer of the
re-audit.

Documents only. Nothing was built or run.

Signed-off-by: James Maes <james@kof22.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/adr/0005-connection-wizard-and-server-tree.md

@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ The pairing choice no longer exists as a control up front, so documentation and
 
 ## Resolved while planning the build, 2026-11-10/11
 
-A planning pass on 2026-11-10 read this record against the code of `release/2.0` (at `65a99d3`; nothing was built or run for it) and listed twenty-one places where the record was silent, disagreed with the code or left a choice open. They keep the plan's numbers, G1 to G21. Each was settled on 2026-11-10 as the plan recommended, under the owner's standing instruction for this work (when a decision comes up, take the recommended option, record it in the decision record, and keep going), with one exception: for G1 and G2 the rule that was taken that day, and then built, is tighter than the plan's wording, and what is recorded here is the rule as built. They were written into this record on 2026-11-11. None of this is the owner's own words, and the owner can reverse any of it.
+A planning pass on 2026-11-10 read this record against the code of `release/2.0` (at `65a99d3`; nothing was built or run for it) and listed twenty-one places where the record was silent, disagreed with the code or left a choice open. They keep the plan's numbers, G1 to G21. Each was settled on 2026-11-10 as the plan recommended, under the owner's standing instruction for this work (when a decision comes up, take the recommended option, record it in the decision record, and keep going), with one exception: for G1 and G2 the rule that was taken that day, and then built, is tighter than the plan's wording, and what is recorded here is the rule as built. They were written into this record on 2026-11-11. None of this is the owner's own words, and the owner can reverse any of it. The plan marked seven of them (G1, G2, G4, G5, G7, G11 and G19) as needing the owner, or the service steps, before the work that depends on them; they were taken under the standing instruction like the rest. Three of them keep a condition that is stated with them (G7, G11 and G19), and one part of G19 is left to the owner.
 
 "Built" below means merged on `release/2.0` and read there at `02f34c3` on 2026-11-11. "Not built yet" means that no merged code does it. Neither the wizard nor the tree exists, the window calls none of the merged parts, and nothing serves version 2 of the pipe, so no decision here has reached an operator.
 
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ Recorded as limits of the design, not as work to do:
 
 ### What the re-audit scores accessibility against
 
-This is the definition G18 refers to. The [baseline audit](../AUDIT-2026-11-10.md) scores the companion on "Accessibility and UX consistency", and that criterion cannot be 9 or better with a Medium finding open against it, so audit findings U9, U10 and U11 have to close. The standards give it no content of their own: a search of `standards/`, `architecture/` and `policies/` in the standards repository at revision `707bbd33f0b9`, repeated on 2026-11-11, finds accessibility in one place, K22-AGENT-20, which tells an agent to preserve it when changing code and does not say what it is. What binds is "Accessibility" above and this section. The reference architecture for a Windows desktop application adds where the proof has to live: logic that can be tested without a window is outside the UI project and under the coverage gate (its section 2, with K22-TEST-10), and the window itself is tested end to end through UI Automation (its section 8).
+This is the definition G18 refers to. The [baseline audit](../AUDIT-2026-11-10.md) scores the companion on "Accessibility and UX consistency", and that criterion cannot be 9 or better with a Medium finding open against it. The plan names U9, U10 and U11 as the findings that therefore have to close; which criterion a finding counts against is for the re-audit's reviewer to say. The standards give it no content of their own: a search of `standards/`, `architecture/` and `policies/` in the standards repository at revision `707bbd33f0b9`, repeated on 2026-11-11, finds accessibility in one place, K22-AGENT-20, which tells an agent to preserve it when changing code and does not say what it is. What binds is "Accessibility" above and this section. The reference architecture for a Windows desktop application adds where the proof has to live: logic that can be tested without a window is outside the UI project and under the coverage gate (its section 2, with K22-TEST-10), and the window itself is tested end to end through UI Automation (its section 8).
 
 What is to be built: