docs(6209): rulebooks, pull telemetry, lesson usage, duplicate arm, cited status, trigger shape

Six more test files state their pinned properties without the issue and
milestone history: the pull-telemetry guard explains enumerating kinds
instead of listing two getter incidents, cited-record status explains why
a hint's id needs its status instead of recounting one misreported step,
and the trigger-shape guard keeps its reasoning about why prose heuristics
fail while dropping the dated corpus audit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

tests/test_cited_record_status.py

@@ -1,14 +1,12 @@
-"""A record you merely CITE carries its status (#4154, milestone 409 step 8).
+"""A record you merely CITE carries its status.
 
 WHY THIS EXISTS
 
-Step 1 (#4010) made placement cheap for a task whose status CHANGES: the write
-returns where it sits, and the report is written from that. It does nothing for
-a task a reply only mentions. In this milestone's own step-6 review the session
-reported "#4014 is the open step of milestone 409". #4014 had been done for
-four days; the open step was #4015. The id did not come from a read — it came
-from a retrieval hint, which carries an id, a kind and a title and says nothing
-about status, while `list_milestones` said "8 of 9" and would not say which one.
+`placement` is cheap for a task whose status CHANGES: the write returns where
+it sits, and the report is written from that. It does nothing for a task a
+reply only mentions. An id taken from a retrieval hint carries an id, a kind
+and a title and says nothing about status, and a count like "8 of 9" does not
+say which one is open — so a finished step can be reported as the open one.
 
 Two surfaces, one principle: the status arrives with the id.
 
@@ -23,7 +21,7 @@ THE ONE THAT MATTERS MOST
 answer "what is next" and they must not drift. It is written as a behavioural
 cross-check rather than `assert milestones.OPEN_STEP_STATUSES is placement._OPEN`,
 which shares one object today and would therefore pass no matter what either
-side did with it (rule 167: a guard has to be able to fail). This one fails if
+side did with it — a guard has to be able to fail. This one fails if
 either side changes its ordering or its notion of "open" alone.
 """
 from types import SimpleNamespace
@@ -164,7 +162,7 @@ async def test_the_earliest_open_step_wins_not_the_earliest_step():
 
 @pytest.mark.asyncio
 async def test_the_batch_does_not_fan_out_per_milestone():
-    """#2384's shape must not come back through the new query.
+    """The step query must not fan out per milestone.
 
     Three queries for one milestone and three for forty — the cost is in the
     number of QUERIES, not the number of plans. A per-milestone "what's next"
@@ -182,7 +180,7 @@ async def test_the_batch_does_not_fan_out_per_milestone():
 
 @pytest.mark.asyncio
 async def test_both_step_queries_take_the_same_visibility_clause():
-    """Rule 78, and a correctness point on top of it.
+    """Access control, and a correctness point on top of it.
 
     `next_step` names a step; the counts beside it say how many there are. Read
     through different clauses, a row could name a step its own progress numbers
@@ -265,7 +263,7 @@ def test_a_record_with_no_status_gains_no_parenthesis():
 
 
 def test_the_listing_tools_say_what_next_step_is_and_how_to_use_it():
-    """The contract every MCP client reads (rule 119, decision #4027).
+    """The contract every MCP client reads.
 
     The field is only worth adding if a caller knows it is there. Without this
     the docstring can be tidied to a parameter list and the one surface that
@@ -290,7 +288,7 @@ def test_the_reply_skill_says_a_cited_record_still_gets_read():
 
     Presence, not absence — the skill legitimately discusses recall in order to
     warn against it, so an absence check here would be satisfied by the warning
-    itself (snippet #3352).
+    itself.
     """
     import pathlib