docs: bank the Windows Store + signing research, and fix the dead EV-certificate line

The distribution answer existed only in conversation, so every session re-derived
it. It is now in the map, and the route decision is explicitly parked as the
creator's.

new TASKS/research-store-certification.md — Store Policies 7.20 + MSIX packaging:
which policies bind, which don't (and why), cert economics, camera/mic gating
layers, YouTube age + COPPA, the 11.12 UGC judgment call.

Two real defects surfaced, neither fixed (docs-only unit):
- FfmpegLocator downloads an unsigned exe from GitHub and runs it. That is
  policy 10.2.2 (dynamic code inclusion) verbatim, and it is the root cause of
  the 2026-09-01 404 — the pin aged out of BtbN's 14-day retention on the
  creator's first real recording attempt. -> TASK 48 item 1, not
  Store-conditional.
- Distribution.md:318 recommended a $400+/yr EV cert for a SmartScreen bypass
  Microsoft removed in March 2024. Fixed; had it shipped it would have cost
  $400+/yr to buy what $150 buys.

Also new: TASKS/task-48 (checklist, carved out of TASK 36 item 6) and
TASKS/task-49 (chat profanity filter, not blocked). ai.md gains the durable
invariants — full trust or recording breaks silently, chat is rendered never
stored — plus a correction to the FFmpeg locator section. MyMistakes.md records
the lesson: a policy citation is a claim about scope, not just text.

MARCOM.md got the privacy-copy guard but is gitignored by design, so that edit
stays local and did not travel here.

MyMistakes.md

@@ -1094,3 +1094,40 @@ the default file name and save the file — that's what pressing enter should do
 the save option, discarding the recording." A Cancel button on a destructive-and-final dialog means
 *discard*, not *accept default*. When a dialog is the last gate before data is committed, ask what
 Cancel should destroy — don't infer "keep the default" just because the default already exists.
+
+---
+
+## 2026-09-27 — A policy number in my head is not a policy finding: check that the policy *applies*
+
+Two confident, wrong claims in one Store-research pass, both of the same shape — I had a policy
+number and a confident paraphrase attached to it, and never asked whether the policy's own scope
+clause covered us.
+
+**1. "Store policy 10.10 (Advertising) requires X"** — 10.10 does not apply to LlamaCasty at
+all. Every clause in it is conditioned on **ads your product displays**. YouTube injects ads
+*server-side after the RTMP handoff*; the app renders no ad, hosts no ad SDK, and makes no ad
+decision. I spent a cycle designing around a rule that was never in force. Same error later with
+**10.2.5** (Store-only installation): the current policy text scopes it to **game and Xbox
+console products**, and the older v7.7 wording that said "all of your apps" has been narrowed —
+citing the stale wording would have produced a confidently wrong conclusion in the *opposite*
+direction (claiming we were locked to MSIX).
+
+**2. "Buy an EV certificate — EV gets instant SmartScreen reputation."** This one was worse than
+wrong, because it was already **written into `Distribution.md`** and would have cost $400+/yr.
+Microsoft **removed the SmartScreen instant-bypass for EV certs in March 2024**. EV and OV now
+accrue reputation identically. I recited a fact that had been dead for over two years, in a
+document that already contained the recommendation.
+
+**The rule, and the generalisation:** *a policy citation is a claim about scope, not just about
+text.* Before acting on one, read the **applicability sentence** and answer three questions —
+does it cover our product class, does it cover our distribution model, and is the wording the
+**current** version? A policy number without a verified scope is a guess wearing a citation's
+clothes, and the failure mode is invisible because the sentence still *sounds* authoritative.
+
+Corollary: **a stale external fact inside a shipped document is worse than a missing one** — it
+is trusted, acted on, and costed. When a doc makes a factual claim about the outside world
+(certificates, platform behaviour, policy text), re-verify it on touch, not on memory. This is
+the same class as the dead-Pin incident in `FfmpegLocator` (`ai.md` → FFmpeg locator): an
+external thing changed, our record of it did not, and the mismatch was discovered by a user
+rather than by a test. **Records of the outside world rot silently and are believed until they
+cost money.**