feat(instructions): a rule proposal has five answers, and three of them route (#3733, #3896)

Step 6 of both milestone 385 (lessons) and 399 (preferences). #3896 asked for
the fourth and fifth answers in one pass, because two people each adding one
branch to a three-way distinction produce a list that does not read as a set.

create_rule now opens by asking what kind of thing is being held, with one
question that sorts it — what happens if someone doesn't do this? Something
breaks, a boundary is crossed: a rule. It gets done a way the operator didn't
want: a preference. They lose time rediscovering it: a lesson. The closing
question grew the two matching answers, and they are named as first-class
outcomes rather than places a proposal lands when it fails. An observation
that turns out to be a lesson has been routed, not dropped.

Stated as a practice, not a prohibition (rule 165). #3557's first cut opened
"NOT YOURS TO CALL UNPROMPTED" and cost the noticing; the wanted behaviour
here is still more proposals, and what changes is only which door they go
through.

create_note says the same from its side, so routing does not depend on having
opened create_rule first — and its existing rule test ("a mistake, not merely
uninformed") turned out to name the lesson exactly. create_lesson names the
fifth kind so the set is complete from every door. create_project_rule's
citation of the loop names five answers, since it cites rather than repeats.

The force axis has one owner (decision #4027): using-scribe states all three
strengths, the sorting question, that updating a preference mid-work is the
normal case, and that preferences shape how work is done and never what gets
recorded. _INSTRUCTIONS carries the pointer — "Rules bind; preferences guide
and you keep them current; lessons inform." It had 14 characters of headroom,
so the clause is paid for by trimming atmosphere from three other lines; 1998
of 2000 now.

Guards: the proposal-loop test learns the preference branch, the lesson
branch and the force question, on both rule surfaces; guidance-ownership gains
the force-axis topic (shared with the docstrings, for the moment a proposal is
actually written) and the preference-scope topic; a new guard pins that the
index names all three strengths and who keeps the middle one current, with its
can-fail case being the omission that actually happens — a kind added to the
product while the index still describes the corpus that came before it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy

plugin/skills/using-scribe/SKILL.md

@@ -93,21 +93,39 @@ Two constraints on *how* that's achieved:
    **`kind` says how much force a record carries, and it is never something to
    infer.** A **rule** must be followed: ignoring it breaks something or
    crosses a boundary. A **preference** records how the operator wants work
-   done, and ignoring it costs consistency rather than correctness. Both are
-   worth following and both arrive the same way; only one is a mistake to
-   miss. An injected line names which in its opening words — *"Standing rule
-   that may apply…"* against *"Preference that may apply…"* — and every
-   payload carries `kind` outright.
+   done, and ignoring it costs consistency rather than correctness. A
+   **lesson** is what is worth knowing — a better way to think about a
+   problem, a solution that transfers — and ignoring it costs time. All three
+   are worth reading and all three arrive beside your work; only the first is
+   a mistake to miss. An injected line names which in its opening words —
+   *"Standing rule that may apply…"* against *"Preference that may apply…"* —
+   a lesson arrives in the records menu marked `lesson`, under a header that
+   says outright that it binds nothing, and every payload carries `kind`.
+
+   **One question sorts them, and it is worth asking out loud: what happens if
+   someone doesn't do this?** *Something breaks, or a boundary is crossed* — a
+   rule, and the operator's to agree to. *It gets done a way they didn't want*
+   — a preference, recorded without a loop. *They lose time rediscovering it*
+   — a lesson, binding nobody. Ask it before proposing rather than settling it
+   silently, because it sometimes answers that what you are holding was never
+   a rule — and routing an observation is not losing it.
 
    **A preference is the one record you keep current yourself.** When the
    operator corrects you, or the preference on file no longer matches how they
    actually want something done, `update_preference` — that is expected, not a
-   liberty, and it wants the task or note that taught the change. Say in the
+   liberty, and updating one mid-work is the normal case rather than an
+   interruption of it. It wants the task or note that taught the change. Say in the
    same turn that you did it, so they can disagree while it is in front of
    them. A rule waits for the operator instead: `create_rule` proposes and
    asks. If what you learned is that something MUST be done a certain way,
    that is a rule to propose, not a preference to harden in place.
 
+   **Preferences shape how work is done, never what gets recorded.** They
+   govern your conduct — how you report, how carefully you pace, which form
+   you reach for. What ends up in Scribe is decided by what the record is:
+   a preference never makes a task into a note, downgrades a rule, or keeps
+   something out of the corpus that belongs there.
+
    **A retrieved rule outranks a default habit.** Before a hard-to-reverse or
    outward-facing act — changing shared state, publishing, deleting, sending
    something outside the session — the operator's rules decide what to do, not
@@ -339,6 +357,13 @@ and none of that survives being written as a rule. A repeatable procedure is a
 **process**; reusable code is a **snippet**. Reach for a rule when the thing
 really is a standing instruction about how to work.
 
+Then ask what force it carries, by the question above. A standing instruction
+that merely costs consistency is a **preference** (`create_preference`), and a
+transferable insight that costs time is a **lesson** (`create_lesson`), keyed
+to the situation it applies to so a later session meets it there. Both are
+first-class outcomes of noticing something, not what's left when a rule
+proposal fails.
+
 ## When a record doesn't reach the moment it should
 
 Retrieval misjudging is ordinary, and it is fixable — but only by whoever