Allow verbatim plan numbers only, positive framing, and tighter targets

[neoneye]

Summary

• Verbatim numbers only: "Use numbers only when the project context provides them directly — do not calculate, derive, or estimate figures." Closes the arithmetic-derivation loophole from Positive framing, consistent word counts, and stronger number-evidence constraint #475 (HK$470M→HK$141M) while still allowing real plan numbers.
• Positive framing: Replace "Do NOT include 'Controls ... vs.'" with "Save critical assessments for the review_lever field."
• Tighter targets: consequences 2-3 sentences, options one sentence, review_lever one sentence (20-40 words). All consistent across field descriptions and system prompt.
• Section 5 prohibition: "NO calculated, derived, or estimated figures — use only numbers that appear verbatim in the project context"

Supersedes #471, #473, #475, #477.

Test plan

• Verify fabricated numbers reduced vs baseline (was 23 in baseline, 20 in Positive framing, consistent word counts, and stronger number-evidence constraint #475, 12 in Qualitative consequences, positive framing, and consistent length targets #477)
• Verify real plan numbers still cited when appropriate
• Verify gpt-oss-20b completes 5/5 plans
• Verify no content quality regression
• Check assessment verdict before merging

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[neoneye]

Self-improve iteration — analysis 73

Verdict: CONDITIONAL

Wins:

• Verbatim-numbers constraint works for consequences: 0 fabricated % claims
• Positive framing in place, no "Controls X vs Y"
• 97.1% call success rate (same as baseline)
• Haiku review template lock improved slightly (85%→70%)

Gaps:

• Numbers still fabricated in options fields (constraint wasn't added to options field description)
• Template lock still at 70-94% in haiku reviews (root cause: "the three options leave unaddressed" in field description)
• Haiku consequences still over-long (2.2x baseline)

The verbatim-numbers approach is the right one — just needs to be applied to options too, and the review_lever field description needs the template-lock fix.

[neoneye]

Closing — verbatim-numbers works for consequences but missing from options field. Will bundle with template-lock fix in next PR.