docs: ausgelieferte Doku zitiert keine Issue-Nummern mehr, docs verify prueft es (schliesst #77)

Files changed:
- .gitignore
- CHANGES.md
- EVALS.md
- INSTALL.md
- README.md
- VERSION
- docs/pipeline-rationale.md
- instructions/CONTRACT.md
- instructions/bootstrap.md
- instructions/dev/issue-tracking.md
- instructions/evolve-subtypes.md
- instructions/kb-profiles.md
- instructions/mcp-read-server.md
- instructions/wiki-ingest/SKILL.md
- kb/CONTRACT.md
- kb/concepts/COLLECTION.md
- kb/sources/COLLECTION.md
- raw/CONTRACT.md
- tools/.coveragerc
- tools/CONTRACT.md
- tools/README.md
- tools/chemenu/commands/docs_verify.py
- tools/chemenu/tests/test_docs_verify.py
- types/source.schema.yaml
- types/type-spec.md

kb/CONTRACT.md

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ resolves against it by name.
   `kb/<collection>/<area>/<page>.md` are the two depths a page may sit at; nothing goes a level
   deeper. A further subdirectory is not a second-level area - it is invisible to the generated
   catalog, which reads exactly two path segments below `kb/` and folds anything past them into
-  the area's own table silently, with no location of its own (Gitea #57). That is why
+  the area's own table silently, with no location of its own. That is why
   `wikitool lint`'s `nested_pages` finding is a hard error rather than an advisory one like
   `misplaced_pages`: a misplaced page still catalogs correctly from the wrong place, a nested
   one makes the catalog itself wrong. A grouping axis that does not come from a type-spec's
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ The rubric already asks for an authority judgment ("+0.1 for official documentat
 reputable secondary source") without anywhere to record it - source count lives in `sources:`,
 recency in `modified:`, agreement is readable from the prose itself, but the authority term is
 thought, applied, and forgotten; the next person re-derives it from scratch. `raw/CONTRACT.md`'s
-capture fields (`fidelity`, `authority`, Gitea #67) make it a recorded fact instead: `lint`
+capture fields (`fidelity`, `authority`) make it a recorded fact instead: `lint`
 compares a page's `confidence_base` against the weakest capture standing of its cited sources and
 reports one when the page claims more than its sources can carry.
 
@@ -294,7 +294,8 @@ that one page, rather than reconfiguring the rubric:
 
 The effective ceiling is the minimum of both columns. `unknown` never triggers a finding on its
 own axis: a backfilled "we don't know" is not a claim about the source, and firing on it would
-report every page citing a pre-#67 source at once, which is noise, not a finding.
+report every page citing a source captured before these two fields existed at once, which is
+noise, not a finding.
 
 ## What does not belong here