Document validation architecture and renderer faithfulness findings

- document Entity Registry and Meeting Context V2 architecture
- preserve meeting_context.yaml as the authoritative meeting-specific input
- define immutable authoritative metadata across all pipeline stages
- restrict Constraint Repair to deterministic structured-data operations
- record BUG-003 root cause and deferred entity-verification resolution
- document BUG-005 attendance-consistency design
- add BUG-006 renderer faithfulness root-cause analysis
- distinguish Engineering Readiness from Practical Usability
- update the persistent regression bug tracker

docs/quality-readiness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Quality Readiness
+
+Meeting Lab quality status should distinguish engineering readiness from
+practical usability.
+
+## Engineering Readiness
+
+Status: NOT READY
+
+The current end-to-end pipeline is not ready to replace the previous
+extraction pipeline. The latest quality milestone records seven known
+regression bugs, two documented root-cause investigations and a renderer
+faithfulness failure where consolidated items are omitted or reclassified.
+
+Engineering readiness requires at least:
+
+- faithful rendering of consolidated decisions, action items and open questions
+- no false responsibility attribution
+- no participant-attendance contradictions against Meeting Context
+- no unverified person/entity names entering final protocols unchecked
+- regression tests or validation coverage for fixed bugs
+
+## Practical Usability
+
+Status: READY FOR MANUAL EDIT
+
+The generated working protocol can still be useful as a draft when reviewed by
+a human editor against the known meeting content. This status does not imply
+engineering readiness and must not be used as evidence that the pipeline is
+faithful or production-ready.
+
+Practical usability means:
+
+- the broad meeting structure is recognizable
+- many relevant topics and process points are present
+- manual correction is still required before the protocol can be trusted
+
+Known manual correction areas include:
+
+- false or over-strong responsibility attribution
+- incorrect open questions
+- synthetic or unverified names from transcript artifacts
+- participant-attendance contradictions
+- reversed or over-broad process meaning
+
+## Current Benchmark Reference
+
+Latest benchmark reviewed for this distinction:
+
+- `samples/benchmarks/meeting_context_v1/e2e_current_20260803_151000/benchmark_report.md`
+
+The benchmark report concludes `NOT READY` for engineering replacement. This
+document adds the separate practical-usability classification for manual-edit
+workflows only.