Sprint 56: Upstream draft control and editorial boundary refactor

- book_chapter: Remove PASS 2+3 (internal polish cycle); replace with narrow
  SELF-CHECK step (structural validation only — names/POV/hook/format/word-floor).
  Add anti-overpolish drafting discipline rules to PASS 1.
  Add genre-aware guide-use note (apply only the guide matching {genre_name}).
  Update adjudication prose_quality description to match draft-quality standard.

- chapter_polish: Convert from broad 'Rewrite the chapter' pass to bounded
  editorial control pass. Explicitly forbids expansion, sensory addition,
  global voice upgrades, new content. Instructs verbatim preservation of
  unaffected paragraphs. Adjudication rewritten around correction fidelity
  rather than 'more polished is better'. Threshold lowered from 90 to 80.

- chapter_review: Add explicit output categories — STRENGTHS TO PRESERVE,
  MUST-FIX CONTINUITY, MUST-FIX CLARITY, OPTIONAL, FORBIDDEN, VERDICT.
  Remove 'REWRITE' verdict option (roundtable resolves that). Remove all three
  writing-craft guides (editorial tasks do not need genre writing guidance).

- chapter_roundtable: Update CONSENSUS REACHED block to MUST APPLY / OPTIONAL /
  PRESERVE / VERDICT categories. Require disagreements to be resolved before
  calling consensus. Remove REWRITE verdict option. Remove all writing-craft
  guides. Remove 'skills' from sections. Add package hint to populate key_changes
  from the full structured consensus. Update adjudication to score structured output.

- book_outline: Strengthen Voice & Tone Guide as hard operating constraints
  (not aspirations); include anti-overpolish rules, rhythm rules, and voice
  don'ts. Expand per-chapter outline format to include Opens-at location,
  Character state, and Dominant tension. Enrich chapter task description
  packets with that state data so book_chapter has richer upstream context.

- skills/skills.md: Document writing-vs-editorial guide split established in
  Sprint 56. Update Used-by column. Add boundary rules section.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

templates/chapter_review.yml

@@ -1,23 +1,17 @@
 name: chapter_review
 description: >
   Independent chapter review. Agent reads the chapter and produces a structured
-  critique in their editorial domain.
+  critique in their editorial domain with explicit must-fix vs optional categorization.
 debug: true
 model: power
 system: agent_prompt
 
-skills:
-  - guides/YAFictionGuide.md
-  - guides/RomanceFictionGuide.md
-  - guides/SciFiFictionGuide.md
-
 agent_prompt:
   - system.md
 
 sections:
   - project
   - rag
-  - skills
   - message
   - instructions
 
@@ -36,10 +30,40 @@ steps:
 
       Write a detailed editorial review from your perspective.
       Be specific — cite line numbers or quote passages where relevant.
-      Structure your review as:
-        1. STRENGTHS (what is working)
-        2. CONCERNS (what needs attention, in priority order)
-        3. VERDICT (pass / revise / rewrite — and why)
+      Structure your review using EXACTLY these five labeled sections:
+
+        1. STRENGTHS TO PRESERVE
+           List elements that are working well and must survive the editorial process unchanged.
+           Be specific: quote or paraphrase the passage. Vague praise ("the writing is good")
+           is not useful here.
+
+        2. MUST-FIX — CONTINUITY
+           List factual errors, POV breaks, timeline inconsistencies, or world-rule violations.
+           These are non-negotiable — they cannot be left as "optional." For each item, state:
+           - What the error is
+           - What the correction should be
+
+        3. MUST-FIX — CLARITY
+           List passages where meaning is genuinely obscured, transitions are dropped, or
+           threads are left dangling in a way that blocks reader comprehension. For each item:
+           - Quote or reference the passage
+           - State the concrete fix
+
+        4. OPTIONAL SUGGESTIONS
+           Craft improvements that would strengthen the chapter but are NOT required for it to
+           pass. Label each suggestion clearly as optional. Do not inflate this section — only
+           include suggestions with a clear upside and low risk of voice damage.
+
+        5. FORBIDDEN CHANGES / NON-GOALS
+           List things that might appear to be problems but should NOT be changed — intentional
+           voice choices, genre conventions, structural decisions that are working. This section
+           protects the draft from over-editing.
+
+        6. VERDICT
+           One of: PASS / REVISE
+           Use PASS if only optional improvements remain.
+           Use REVISE if any MUST-FIX items are present.
+           Reserve judgment on full rewrites — that decision belongs to the roundtable.
 
   - type: document
     filename: "review-{chapter_ref}-{agent_slug}"
@@ -54,10 +78,10 @@ adjudication:
   criteria:
     specificity:
       weight: 40
-      description: "Review cites specific passages, scenes, or structural elements — not vague general commentary"
+      description: "Review cites specific passages, scenes, or structural elements in all sections — not vague general commentary"
     actionability:
       weight: 35
-      description: "Each concern includes a concrete, implementable suggestion for improvement"
+      description: "Each MUST-FIX item includes a concrete, implementable correction; OPTIONAL items are clearly labeled"
     coverage:
       weight: 25
-      description: "Review addresses both strengths and concerns, ending with a clear VERDICT (pass/revise/rewrite)"
+      description: "All six sections are present; STRENGTHS and FORBIDDEN sections are populated, not left empty"