refactor(#1762): clarify verification-missing/unknown routing text (#3439)

* test(#1762): assert reassuring verification-routing wording (RED)

Regression test for #1762 — asserts readVerificationStatus's missing/
unknown next_action text reassures the user that execute-phase resumes
at the verification gates without redoing work, instead of reading as
a blind re-run instruction. Fails against current wording; the fix
lands in the next commit.

* fix(#1762): reassure verification-missing/unknown routing text is safe to run

readVerificationStatus's 'missing' and 'unknown' next_action text read as
"redo the implementation", when execute-phase's own discover_and_group_plans
step (#2868) already resumes at the verification gates and skips
execute_waves/checkpoint_handling entirely when every plan already has a
SUMMARY.md. Reword both to say so explicitly, and soften the 'unknown'
message to acknowledge a non-standard status may be an intentional marker
rather than presuming re-verification is always the fix.

Also updates progress.md's Route V.missing / V.unknown to consume the
dynamic $VERIFICATION_NEXT_ACTION (matching V.gaps/V.human) instead of a
hand-duplicated string, so the reassurance lands there too without a second
copy to keep in sync.

No change to next_command routing, status values, or the isPhaseComplete
completeness predicate (still gated on status === 'passed' per the #2957
DISK-STRICT decision) — advisory text only.

* fix(#1762): drop duplicated reassurance clause in progress.md routing text

Review finding: the SUMMARY.md reassurance was stated once via the
interpolated $VERIFICATION_NEXT_ACTION and again as a parenthetical on
the command line, in both Route V.missing and Route V.unknown. Trimmed
the parenthetical so $VERIFICATION_NEXT_ACTION stays the single source
of truth.

* docs(#1762): add changeset fragment

Type Changed with a docs-exempt marker — advisory routing text only,
no docs page documents this specific message today.

* test(#1762): acknowledge progress.md emitted-content growth

Route V.missing/V.unknown now render a small block referencing
${VERIFICATION_NEXT_ACTION} instead of a bare command line, growing
progress.md by 376 bytes. Deliberate per the differential attribution
check (ADR-2719).

* chore: drop spent progress.md ack from #3218's emitted-drift fragment

The #3218 growth it described is already on next (inert, per the
lint's own note that spent acks 'can no longer clear anything').
Its presence collided with the new #1762 fragment naming the same
bare filename, which lint-emitted-drift-ack rejects outright ('two
ack sources may never name the same path'). #3218's other two
acks (plan-phase.md, plan-review-convergence.md) are untouched.

* docs(#1762): backfill changeset PR number

---------

Co-authored-by: sim <sim@local>

tests/emitted-drift-acks/1762-verification-routing-wording.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"version":1,"paths":{"progress.md":{"reason":"#1762: Route V.missing and Route V.unknown now consume the dynamic ${VERIFICATION_NEXT_ACTION} block (matching the existing V.gaps/V.human format) instead of a hardcoded duplicate string, so the routing text stays reassuring and in sync with src/verification.cts's reworded next_action — deliberate growth, not drift."}}}

tests/emitted-drift-acks/3218-prompt-layer-plan-counts.json

@@ -6,9 +6,6 @@
     },
     "plan-review-convergence.md": {
       "reason": "Issue #3218 (epic #3180 phase 8): replaced a raw `ls *-PLAN.md | wc -l` re-derivation with a `gsd_run query find-phase` call plus jq extraction of the count field, routing the plan count through scanPhasePlans (ADR-3180 §7.5) so superseded plans are excluded and the review converges on the live set."
-    },
-    "progress.md": {
-      "reason": "Issue #3218 (epic #3180 phase 8): replaced a raw `ls *-PLAN.md | wc -l` re-derivation with a `gsd_run query find-phase` call plus jq extraction of the count field, and additionally carries the Route-0 dead-path fix (a branch that previously reported zero plans on the nested plans/ layout is now reachable and correct)."
     }
   }
 }

tests/verification-status.test.cjs

@@ -138,6 +138,10 @@ describe('verification-status', () => {
       assert.equal(result.status, 'missing');
       assert.equal(result.next_command, '/gsd-execute-phase');
       assert.ok(result.next_action.includes('verify step never completed'));
+      assert.ok(
+        result.next_action.includes('does not re-run plans that already have a SUMMARY.md'),
+        `next_action must reassure the user execute-phase will not redo work (#1762); got: ${result.next_action}`,
+      );
     } finally {
       cleanup(dir);
     }
@@ -155,6 +159,10 @@ describe('verification-status', () => {
         result.next_action.includes('bogus'),
         `next_action should mention the raw value; got: ${result.next_action}`,
       );
+      assert.ok(
+        result.next_action.includes('intentional non-standard marker'),
+        `next_action must acknowledge an unrecognized status may be an intentional marker (#1762); got: ${result.next_action}`,
+      );
     } finally {
       cleanup(dir);
     }