docs: Exit 42 als Haltung und die Adoption eines neuen Templates nachgezogen (#119)

Files changed:
- CHANGES.md
- VERSION
- docs/ownership-and-templates.md
- docs/why-gates-are-code.md

docs/why-gates-are-code.md

@@ -7,6 +7,16 @@ one trips, are in [AGENTS.md § Gates](../AGENTS.md#gates) and
 [instructions/gates.md](../instructions/gates.md). This page is only about the design choice
 underneath them: why code, and why these four mechanisms in particular.
 
+<!-- wikitool:toc -->
+## Contents
+
+- [A suggestion an agent can talk itself past](#a-suggestion-an-agent-can-talk-itself-past)
+- [Why four different mechanisms, not one](#why-four-different-mechanisms-not-one)
+- [Exit 42 is a posture, and it outgrew the gates](#exit-42-is-a-posture-and-it-outgrew-the-gates)
+- [A gate in code still has to be reachable](#a-gate-in-code-still-has-to-be-reachable)
+- [Numbers that come from measurement, not intuition](#numbers-that-come-from-measurement-not-intuition)
+<!-- /wikitool:toc -->
+
 ## A suggestion an agent can talk itself past
 
 An instruction like "don't publish too much at once" or "don't loop forever" lives in the same
@@ -51,6 +61,28 @@ The Iteration Budget Gate asks a fourth kind of question - not "is this instance
 itself (call count, repeated identical calls), not from anything about the content of any one
 call.
 
+## Exit 42 is a posture, and it outgrew the gates
+
+Those four are the named gates, and they are not the only thing that exits 42 any more. When the
+task-tracker provider layer arrived, it brought a case that looks like a gate from the outside and
+is not one: a provider whose API cannot create a project (Super Productivity's local REST API
+reads projects but does not write them) raises `HumanInterventionRequired`, and the command prints
+what a human has to do and exits 42.
+
+Reusing the code was deliberate, and so was not calling it a fifth gate. What the four gates share
+is a *refusal*: the operation was possible and the tool declined to perform it unreviewed. This is
+the opposite situation - the operation is not possible at all, and no token could make it
+possible. What the two have in common is only what the exit code actually communicates: **stop,
+show this to a human, do not improvise a way around it.** That sentence is the whole meaning of
+42 here, and it is worth more as a shared convention than as a number reserved for one mechanism.
+
+The alternative was worse in a specific way. A provider that cannot do something could have been
+described in the instruction layer instead - "if you are on this tracker, create the project by
+hand first" - which is exactly the prose-shaped rule this page argues against, with the added cost
+that every instruction would then have to know which provider an instance runs. The capability
+gap belongs where the capability is, and reaches the session as an exit code rather than as a
+paragraph it has to remember to apply.
+
 ## A gate in code still has to be reachable
 
 Code beats prose for the reason above, but on its own it buys less than it looks like: a check