Close the line-art loophole and widen the rebuild directive

The second codex hamster-wheel run read the medium gate and still
assigned a shaded, perspectived technical illustration to 'Authored SVG
geometry': the world was an instruction booklet, so the affinity
clause's 'diagrams' blessed the downgrade, and the page shipped as flat
clipart against an illustration-grade comp. The gate now says style
does not move the boundary: perspective, shading, figure drawing, or
dense mechanical detail is illustration however line-drawn it looks,
and authored SVG ends where drawing skill begins. The craft floor's
sketchy-SVG rule carries the same sentence.

The reviewer in that run built an honest matrix, MATERIAL contradicted
on the focal element, and still emitted it as a fixable item the parent
answered with CSS. The rebuild directive now fires when MATERIAL is
contradicted on the focal element, not only when TYPE falls with it,
and every asset-requiring fix must say 'produce: <region>' so it cannot
be answered as a style tweak.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

skill/reference/visualize.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ After approval, record the choice where tools can find it: the approved comp's p
 
 ## Inventory implementation fidelity
 
-Before building, inventory the approved comp's major visible ingredients in writing (a short table in the surface brief or working notes; the finish reviewer audits shipped assets against it) and choose an implementation medium for each: semantic HTML/CSS/SVG, existing project asset, generated raster, sourced raster, icon library, canvas/WebGL, or accepted omission. The same written inventory names the comp's compositional commitments: navigation items and icons, headline levels and their scale relationship, signature geometry such as seams, masks, and overlaps, and each section's arrangement and density. An element never written down is the element the build silently drops, and the direction contract's 150 words cannot carry this list, so this inventory is where it lives. The medium column is where an approved design most often dies, so it obeys a gate: the medium is decided by what the comp region shows, never by what feels buildable in the current stack. A human figure, a product object, machinery, or any material with lighting and depth is raster whatever the stack; writing "silhouette" for a photographic figure, or "CSS" for a sculpted panel's finish, is not a medium choice, it is the quiet deletion of the approved design, and it is how a comp full of physical material becomes a flat page with the same section order. Produce such regions by regenerating them cleanly, with the approved comp and its embedded prompt as the reference for a fresh render at asset resolution; never crop pixels out of the comp itself, whose effective resolution sits far below asset grade. Dropping an image-native region instead of producing it is a scope decision the user makes at the approval point, never a silent flattening after it. Generated imagery is a material, not a claim: evidence rules bind assertions, specs, testimonials, and photographs presented as real, never render fidelity, so "no photography on hand" forbids fake proof, not an illustrated hero. The affinity still runs both ways: precise geometry, hard-edged shape systems, diagrams, expressive motion, shaders, and anything interactive are vector and GPU territory, SVG, canvas, WebGL, where reaching for a raster flattens what should move, scale, and respond, and code executed safely and professionally remains first-class there. Raster is for what the world paints; code is for what the world draws, animates, or reacts with, and choosing code there is ambition, not economy. Every `produce` entry is produced before the build ships, through the asset producer or in the current thread; an inventory with unproduced entries is an unfinished build, and this gate is where imagery-free pages come from when it is skipped.
+Before building, inventory the approved comp's major visible ingredients in writing (a short table in the surface brief or working notes; the finish reviewer audits shipped assets against it) and choose an implementation medium for each: semantic HTML/CSS/SVG, existing project asset, generated raster, sourced raster, icon library, canvas/WebGL, or accepted omission. The same written inventory names the comp's compositional commitments: navigation items and icons, headline levels and their scale relationship, signature geometry such as seams, masks, and overlaps, and each section's arrangement and density. An element never written down is the element the build silently drops, and the direction contract's 150 words cannot carry this list, so this inventory is where it lives. The medium column is where an approved design most often dies, so it obeys a gate: the medium is decided by what the comp region shows, never by what feels buildable in the current stack. A human figure, a product object, machinery, or any material with lighting and depth is raster whatever the stack; writing "silhouette" for a photographic figure, or "CSS" for a sculpted panel's finish, is not a medium choice, it is the quiet deletion of the approved design, and it is how a comp full of physical material becomes a flat page with the same section order. Style does not move this boundary: a comp region with perspective, shading, figure drawing, or dense mechanical detail is illustration however line-drawn it looks, and no build session can author illustration as vectors, so it regenerates as raster like any photograph. Authored SVG covers what a session can specify exactly, diagrams with countable elements, controls, flat shape systems, and it ends where drawing skill begins; an instruction-manual world does not convert its illustrations into diagrams, it makes them line-art illustrations. Produce such regions by regenerating them cleanly, with the approved comp and its embedded prompt as the reference for a fresh render at asset resolution; never crop pixels out of the comp itself, whose effective resolution sits far below asset grade. Dropping an image-native region instead of producing it is a scope decision the user makes at the approval point, never a silent flattening after it. Generated imagery is a material, not a claim: evidence rules bind assertions, specs, testimonials, and photographs presented as real, never render fidelity, so "no photography on hand" forbids fake proof, not an illustrated hero. The affinity still runs both ways: precise geometry, hard-edged shape systems, diagrams, expressive motion, shaders, and anything interactive are vector and GPU territory, SVG, canvas, WebGL, where reaching for a raster flattens what should move, scale, and respond, and code executed safely and professionally remains first-class there. Raster is for what the world paints; code is for what the world draws, animates, or reacts with, and choosing code there is ambition, not economy. Every `produce` entry is produced before the build ships, through the asset producer or in the current thread; an inventory with unproduced entries is an unfinished build, and this gate is where imagery-free pages come from when it is skipped.
 
 Pay special attention to the dominant composition, signature use, image-native content, second-fold system, and any interaction the still image only implies. If the concept depends on a photograph, architectural scene, product object, portrait, or other raster-native material, do not silently replace it with generic CSS scenery.