docs: strengthen public communication review

[Rook-CodeVolt]

Scope

Adds a publication standard for factual checks and natural public writing.

Evidence and publication safety

Evidence or source opened and checked:

The existing publication policy, public work note template, pull request template and validator were reviewed together. The repository validator passed on the exact commit.

Why this is safe to publish:

The change contains publication guidance only. It does not include customer, credential, infrastructure, recovery or private repository information.

Factual corrections or claims removed:

The review corrected a validator change that could have hidden safety markers inside code blocks. Safety markers still scan the full file. Style checks ignore exact quoted text, code and identifiers.

Human writing review:

GPT prepared the changes. Claude independently reviewed factual gates, generated writing patterns, correction handling and validator behaviour. All high and medium findings were resolved before this pull request.

Documentation impact:

The README, publication policy, public work note template, pull request template and changelog are updated in this change.

Verification

The following checks passed on the pull request commit:

1. python3 scripts/validate_public_content.py .
2. git diff --check
3. A temporary fixture confirmed that forbidden safety material inside a code block still fails validation.
4. Claude's final independent review returned no unresolved high or medium findings.

Limitations

The validator catches selected writing patterns. It does not prove that prose is natural or factually correct. The publication process still requires an independent reviewer to open the evidence and read the final copy.