docs: credit Baton lifecycle provenance

[cablate]

What changed

Add a design-provenance note immediately before the composition contract in both pilotfish + Baton compatibility reports.

Surface	Change
Traditional Chinese report	Preserve CabLate's July 13, 2026 reply verbatim and identify CabLate as the author of Baton
English report	Add a faithful translation, label it as a translation, and link back to the Traditional Chinese original
Document flow	Place the provenance after the experiment purpose and fixture, then transition directly into the five-stage contract it informed

The attribution links both CabLate and Baton. No orchestration policy, role definition, benchmark result, snapshot, or machine-readable evidence changes.

Why

PR #10 formalized the phase-aware Baton lifecycle as Discovery → Plan → Approval → Execution → Verification, but the reports do not currently record where this part of the design discussion came from.

Before that lifecycle was formalized, CabLate described the large-project prerequisite as defining scope first, using read-only research agents to understand the real project, keeping Plan synthesis in the main session, optionally challenging the Plan with a verifier, waiting for user approval, and only then choosing the execution topology. The author of pilotfish asked CabLate to preserve that original reply in the docs so the attribution would live with the resulting contract instead of remaining only in the community conversation.

Original idea	v1.2.0 form
Define the phase scope before delegating	Phase-specific stability contracts
Research agents first inspect the real project	Discovery
The main session writes the Plan	Plan synthesis remains in the main session
A verifier may challenge Plan reliability	Read-only plan-verifier with READY / REVISE
The user permits execution	Explicit Approval gate before writes
Baton chooses the best delegation after approval	Execution receives a stable approved contract

Keeping this note between Purpose and Composition contract makes the reading order explicit: tested context → design provenance → formal contract. The bilingual treatment also avoids presenting the English translation as CabLate's original wording.

Scope and disclosure

• The Traditional Chinese blockquote matches the supplied original reply exactly.
• The English blockquote is explicitly labeled as a translation and links to the original.
• The public attribution is limited to the discussion date, CabLate's GitHub profile, and the Baton repository.
• The change does not alter any Gate claim, measurement, limitation, or recorded hash.

Checks

python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v
13 tests passed

both reports rendered through the GitHub Markdown API
24 relative Markdown links and anchors resolved
Traditional Chinese quote exactness check passed
git diff --check passed

The repository tests were run from an LF-preserving Git-index export under Ubuntu because their snapshot and generated-output checks are byte-exact; the host Windows Git installation has global core.autocrlf=true.

[Nanako0129]

感謝 @cablate 🙏
逐字核對過：中文引文與 2026-07-13 的原文完全一致，英文版清楚標示為翻譯並回鏈原文；在本地合併結果上跑 repo 的 13 個 policy 測試全數通過。

v1.2.0 的 Discovery → Plan → Approval → Execution → Verification 骨架就是從這段回覆長出來的，現在設計緣起終於和它催生的合成契約放在同一頁。

感謝補上這塊拼圖，歡迎正式成為 pilotfish 的 contributor 🎉

之後想拿重構 Legacy code 的真實場景當下一個大型 gate，隨時開 issue。

---

For English readers: verified the Traditional Chinese quote matches the 2026-07-13 original verbatim, the English section is properly labeled as a translation, and all 13 policy tests pass on the locally merged tree. The v1.2.0 phase-aware lifecycle grew directly out of this reply — the provenance now lives next to the contract it informed. Welcome aboard as a pilotfish contributor 🎉