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

tests/test_rule_creation_asks_first.py

@@ -76,6 +76,20 @@ _ELEMENTS = {
     ),
     "how it would be enforced": ("enforc",),
     "the answers offered back": ("as written", "talk about it", "discuss"),
+    # The fourth and fifth answers (#3733, #3896). They are what makes the
+    # question a ROUTING question rather than a yes/no one: an observation
+    # that turns out to be a preference or a lesson has found its home, not
+    # failed to become a rule. Written 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.
+    "the preference branch": ("create_preference", "a preference"),
+    "the lesson branch": ("create_lesson", "a lesson"),
+    # And the test that routes BEFORE the proposal is drafted, so the kind is
+    # a question asked out loud rather than one settled silently.
+    "the force question": (
+        "what happens if someone doesn't", "force is the axis",
+        "a rule binds, a preference guides",
+    ),
 }