chore: sync .cursor from suite

.cursor/skills/research/references/quality-checklists.md

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
 - [ ] All components have comparison tables: Each component lists alternatives with tools, advantages, limitations, security, cost
 - [ ] Component options are broad: component tables include baseline, production, open-source, commercial/vendor, SOTA/research, adjacent-domain, defer/no-build, and disqualified options where applicable
 - [ ] Tools/libraries verified: Suggested tools actually exist and work as described
-- [ ] Component fit matrix completed: `06_component_fit_matrix.md` exists and every selected component/tool/pattern is marked `Selected`
+- [ ] Component fit matrix completed: `06_component_fit_matrix.md` (or `06_component_fit_matrix/` if split) exists and every selected component/tool/pattern is marked `Selected`
 - [ ] No field-adjacent substitution: no selected candidate is chosen only because it solves a similar class of problem while failing the project's explicit constraints
 - [ ] Testing strategy covers AC: Tests map to acceptance criteria
 - [ ] Tech stack documented (if Phase 3 ran): `tech_stack.md` has evaluation tables, risk assessment, and learning requirements
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ When the research topic has Critical or High sensitivity level:
 ## Target Audience Consistency Check (BLOCKING)
 
 - [ ] Research boundary clearly defined: `00_question_decomposition.md` has clear population/geography/timeframe/level boundaries
-- [ ] Every source has target audience annotated in `01_source_registry.md`
+- [ ] Every source has target audience annotated in `01_source_registry.md` (or category files under `01_source_registry/` if split)
 - [ ] Mismatched sources properly handled (excluded, annotated, or marked reference-only)
 - [ ] No audience confusion in fact cards: Every fact has target audience consistent with research boundary
 - [ ] No audience confusion in the report: Policies/research/data cited have consistent target audiences
@@ -113,11 +113,11 @@ For every lead candidate that is a library/SDK/framework/service:
 
 - [ ] The exact mode/configuration the project will use is pinned in one explicit sentence (inputs, outputs, runtime); no vague "supports X" language
 - [ ] `context7` (or equivalent docs lookup) was run for the candidate, with at least 3 queries: mode enumeration, project's exact mode, disqualifier probe
-- [ ] All consulted URLs from context7 / official docs are appended to `01_source_registry.md`
-- [ ] A Minimum Viable Example (MVE) was saved for the pinned mode in `02_fact_cards.md` (or `02_mve_evidence.md`) with: source, inputs in example, outputs in example, project inputs, project outputs required, match assessment ✅/⚠️/❌
+- [ ] All consulted URLs from context7 / official docs are appended to `01_source_registry.md` (or files under `01_source_registry/` if split)
+- [ ] A Minimum Viable Example (MVE) was saved for the pinned mode in `02_fact_cards.md` / `02_fact_cards/` (or `02_mve_evidence.md`) with: source, inputs in example, outputs in example, project inputs, project outputs required, match assessment ✅/⚠️/❌
 - [ ] When the MVE inputs or outputs do not exactly match the project's, the mismatch is cited from the official docs (not inferred), and the candidate is `Experimental only` or `Rejected`
 - [ ] When a library has multiple modes, each project-relevant mode appears as its own candidate row (not a single library row that softens across modes)
-- [ ] Restrictions × Candidate-Modes sub-matrix in `06_component_fit_matrix.md` is filled for every lead candidate, with one row per numbered restriction and per numbered acceptance criterion
+- [ ] Restrictions × Candidate-Modes sub-matrix in `06_component_fit_matrix.md` (or files under `06_component_fit_matrix/` if split) is filled for every lead candidate, with one row per numbered restriction and per numbered acceptance criterion
 - [ ] Sub-matrix uses ✅ / ❌ / ❓ / N/A only — no free-form prose substitutes
 - [ ] No `Selected` candidate has any ❌ or ❓ cell in its sub-matrix
 - [ ] "Validation gate required" footnotes are explicitly classified as either *API capability* (must be resolved here) or *runtime quality* (may be carried forward)

.cursor/skills/research/references/source-tiering.md

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ Value Translation:
 
 ## Source Registry Entry Template
 
-For each source consulted, immediately append to `01_source_registry.md`:
+For each source consulted, immediately append to `01_source_registry.md` (or the appropriate category file under `01_source_registry/` if the artifact has been split — see splittable-artifacts convention in `steps/00_project-integration.md`):
 ```markdown
 ## Source #[number]
 - **Title**: [source title]