docs: plain-English pass over the active specs

Ran the humanizer rules over 79 prose files in the active specs (brief,
design, requirements, research and narrative docs). Removed em dashes,
significance inflation, forced rule-of-three, bold-label list items and
filler. Skipped tasks.md checklists and the retired specs (harnessx-*,
openrouter-sast-harness, unseen-repo-evaluation).

Every number, path, command, hash and identifier was preserved: checked
each file against HEAD for drift in numbers, inline code and code fences,
zero drift across all 79 files.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>

.kiro/specs/finding-feedback-loop/design.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ anything.
 
 The design turns on one asymmetry: **two of those three bugs needed no judgement at all.** Once the first was
 understood, the other two were the same fix carried across. So the automation that pays is *propagation and
-memory*, and the model is confined to the one step that genuinely needs inference — naming what a group has in
+memory*, and the model is confined to the one step that genuinely needs inference: naming what a group has in
 common.
 
 ### Goals
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ common.
 
 ### Non-Goals
 
-- **Automated fact-table edits.** Not deferred — prohibited. See Boundary Commitments.
+- **Automated fact-table edits.** Prohibited rather than deferred. See Boundary Commitments.
 - Suppressing findings silently. A dismissal makes a finding *labelled*, never invisible.
 - A general-purpose optimiser. The only surfaces evolved are two prompt constants.
 - Replacing the pair corpus. It is the holdout that keeps per-repository tuning honest.
@@ -38,10 +38,10 @@ common.
 
 ### Out of Boundary
 
-- `semantic/facts`, `semantic/obligations`, `ruleset/`, the declared policy file — **no automated writer, by
+- `semantic/facts`, `semantic/obligations`, `ruleset/`, the declared policy file: **no automated writer, by
   any path, at any time.** This is the boundary the whole design exists to respect.
 - The three gates. They are the invariant an adoption is measured against, not a thing this spec changes.
-- `model/taint.py`, `dominance.py`, `config_value.py` — arbiters are fixed here; a proposal that would change
+- `model/taint.py`, `dominance.py`, `config_value.py`: arbiters are fixed here; a proposal that would change
   one is a proposal for a human, not an edit.
 
 ### Allowed Dependencies
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Three pieces already exist and are reused rather than rebuilt:
 - **`benchmarks/repos/*.toml`** declares known vulnerabilities per checkout, with `in_scope` stating whether a
   family can decide one at all. That is the positive half of an evaluation set, already committed.
 - **`pairs.py`** already carries a train/holdout split and the machinery that respects it. The leak of
-  2026-09-05 was in the *lever*, not the splitter — `semantic/loo.evaluate_loo` was honest throughout.
+  2026-09-05 was in the *lever*, not the splitter; `semantic/loo.evaluate_loo` was honest throughout.
 - **`redaction.py`** is applied to every prompt and persisted trajectory, and applies here unchanged.
 
 ### Boundary Map
@@ -87,21 +87,21 @@ benchmarks/repos/*.toml ── read ────▶   evaluation set
 
 **A dismissal is a label, not a suppression.** A suppressed finding disappears and its reason rots; a
 labelled one is reported as dismissed with its reason, and a dismissal that stops matching is reported too.
-This is what turns a suppression list into the negative half of an evaluation set — the thing that makes the
+This is what turns a suppression list into the negative half of an evaluation set, the thing that makes the
 rest of the feature possible.
 
 **The tool never writes the dismissal file.** Same rule as the declared policy file, for the same reason: a
 file the tool edits is a file no reviewer trusts. It is committed by a developer and reviewed like code.
 
 **Grouping is deterministic; only the hypothesis is not.** Entries are grouped by shared spec token, matcher
-clause, family and witness shape — all mechanical. The model is asked one question about a group it did not
+clause, family and witness shape; all mechanical. The model is asked one question about a group it did not
 choose, and its answer goes to a queue. This keeps the inference confined to the step that needs it.
 
 **Evolution targets the question, never the facts.** A prompt is how we ask; a fact table is what we claim.
 `CANDIDATE_QUESTION` and `residual_question` are already the LLM-facing surface and are the only mutable
 targets. Enforced by a test that fails if any writer touches the fact modules, not by convention.
 
-**The holdout is never read.** Not "should not" — the evaluation-set API has no path to it during
+**The holdout is never read.** The evaluation-set API has no path to it during
 optimisation, and a test asserts the absence. The 2026-09-05 leak was possible because reading it was merely
 discouraged.
 
@@ -123,9 +123,9 @@ benchmarks/ledger/
 
 ### Changed
 
-- `cli.py` — a `feedback` subcommand: `ledger`, `groups`, `propose`, `evolve`. Maintainer surface; `scan`
+- `cli.py`: a `feedback` subcommand: `ledger`, `groups`, `propose`, `evolve`. Maintainer surface; `scan`
   gains only the dismissal read.
-- `reports.py` — a dismissed finding is rendered as dismissed with its reason.
+- `reports.py`: a dismissed finding is rendered as dismissed with its reason.
 
 ### Unchanged and load-bearing