fix(templates): make review projections scenario-first

[johnlanni]

Summary

• define decision integrity as the hard constraint, then optimize content, wording, order, interaction, and visual form for the least cognitive effort needed to reach the right decision
• make human-review projections lead with the affected person/operator, their goal, and the observable outcome before technical structure
• require one concrete trigger-to-outcome walkthrough plus a meaningful failure or boundary case
• map each case step to what the person sees, what the system does, and what the reviewer should verify
• keep component details, artifact IDs, and DAGs as progressive technical explanations of the case
• update Proposal, Design, and Implement recipes, the HTML skeleton, issue scaffolds, generated assets, and focused assertions

The guidance forbids simplifying away material facts, uncertainty, tradeoffs, risks, alternatives, or decision consequences. This preserves the coverage-complete, statusless, non-authoritative projection contract from #350.

Testing

• go test ./internal/templates ./internal/commands -count=1
• git diff --check
• forward-tested the generated Design guidance against an idempotent-webhook Design; the result led with the operator retry case and normal/retry/crash walkthrough before architecture
• forward-tested a Proposal with ambiguous writes and competing stakeholder preferences; the result remained easy to follow while preserving the split evidence, sample weakness, credible options, and unresolved decision