enhance(#3028): responsive Markdown separators instead of fixed-width rules (#3789)

* feat(#3028): responsive Markdown separators instead of fixed-width rules

Stage banners, checkpoints, completion and error panels used fixed-width
runs of box-drawing characters -- a 53-column heavy rule and a 62-column
double-line box. Those runs are ordinary text to a Markdown-rendering
host, so in a narrower pane they wrap and the border comes apart from
the heading it framed.

Shipped content now emits an ATX heading for a titled section and a
blank-line-delimited --- for a break between sections, both of which
adapt to the available width. The same convention is applied to the
three code sites that built these strings at runtime: the UAT
checkpoint renderer, the milestone-close audit report, and the TDD
review checkpoint table.

Removing the box also removes its only reason to exist -- the
east-asian-width padding helpers that kept its right border aligned
(checkpointBoxLine, displayWidth, isWideCodePoint, ZERO_WIDTH_MARK_RE,
CHECKPOINT_BOX_WIDTH). RTL directional isolation is unchanged.

The convention is specified in gsd-core/references/ui-brand.md and
enforced across all shipped content by tests/responsive-separators.test.cjs.

Refs #3028

* test(#3028): pin the heading form in checkpoint and audit-report assertions

These suites asserted the exact box borders and the 62-column padded
banner interior. With the box gone they assert the ### heading form,
the --- break and the bolded instruction line, and each now carries a
positive assertion that no box character remains -- which is what pins
the fix rather than merely tolerating it.

Language coverage is converted, not dropped: Japanese, Chinese, Korean,
Hindi and Arabic all still assert their rendered banner, and the Arabic
case still asserts the RTL directional isolates the box removal must
not disturb. Adds a case for a banner longer than the old inner width,
which previously produced a ragged border and now has none.

Refs #3028

* chore(#3028): acknowledge execute-plan.md growth from the checkpoint display spec

The checkpoint_protocol display spec described the drawn box; it now
describes the heading, the --- break and the bolded action prompt,
which costs 22 bytes (40111 -> 40133, 827 under the cap).

Appended to the existing #3370 fragment rather than filed as a new one:
a growth ack keys on the bare filename and #3370 already declares
execute-plan.md, so a second source naming it would be a hard
duplicate-key error. Same supersede-by-append route #3370 took for the
spent #2652 fragment.

Refs #3028

* docs(#3028): state the load-bearing half of the separator rule, and amend the zh-CN reference

Review found three things.

The rule as first written demanded a blank line above AND below every
---. Only the one above is load-bearing: it is what stops CommonMark
reading the rule as a setext underline for the line above. The one below
is cosmetic, because a thematic break is a leaf block. The rule now says
that, with the reason, instead of asserting a stricter form the content
does not keep.

The zh-CN reference had received the mechanical box-to-heading swap but
none of the prose behind it: it still claimed a 62-character checkpoint
width and still listed --- among forbidden mixed banner styles, so it
contradicted the convention it was translating. It now carries the
separator section, the setext reasoning, the unconditional-vs-per-runtime
rationale and a corrected anti-pattern list, in Chinese.

The user guide asserted that a heading is not a degradation anywhere.
That is an assertion, not a demonstration. It now says what was actually
traded away in a plain terminal, points at the recorded rationale, and
invites the report that would justify the capability flag instead.

Refs #3028

* chore(#3028): backfill changeset PR number

Refs #3028

---------

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

gsd-core/workflows/code-review.md

@@ -690,11 +690,11 @@ TOTAL=$(echo "$FRONTMATTER" | grep "total:" | head -1 | cut -d: -f2 | xargs)
 Display inline summary to user:
 
 ```
-═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+---
 
   Code Review Complete: Phase ${PHASE_NUMBER} (${PHASE_NAME})
 
-───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+---
 
   Depth:           ${REVIEW_DEPTH} (${DEPTH_PROVENANCE})
   Files Reviewed:  ${FILES_REVIEWED}
@@ -703,10 +703,11 @@ Display inline summary to user:
     Critical:  ${CRITICAL}
     Warning:   ${WARNING}
     Info:      ${INFO}
-    ──────────
+
+---
     Total:     ${TOTAL}
 
-───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+---
 ```
 
 If status is "clean":
@@ -735,7 +736,7 @@ grep -A 3 "^### CR-\|^### BL-\|^### WR-" "${REVIEW_PATH}" | head -n 12
 
 **Note on tests:** Automated tests for this command and workflow are planned for Phase 4 (Pipeline Integration & Testing, requirement INFR-03). Phase 2 focuses on correct implementation; Phase 4 adds regression coverage across platforms.
 
-═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
+---
 </step>
 
 </process>