A waiver costs something, because it is visible where the owner looks

[Tradebaas]

What changed and why

The gate from S-02 passes a class that is answered with a live command and a class that is waived
in exactly the same way, and that is the right call: a waiver is a stated, reasoned choice, and
failing a build over one would push projects to lie in the table instead of using the form
honestly. The cost is that waiving became free, because nothing counted waivers anywhere the owner
actually looks.

The floor is now derived once, in checks/check-stack.mjs where the contract is already parsed,
and rendered from that one derivation in two places: the enforcement line under node checks/check.mjs,
and its own line on the board directly under the gates. Neither reads the table itself, so a waiver
cannot appear in one and not the other.

Three things worth the reviewer's attention:

• The wording states its own limit, in the summary rather than behind the fold. Proven means a
  workflow runs the command the stack file names. Nothing here has looked at what that command
  asserts. A folded board still has to say so, or 6 of 6 reads as an audit nobody performed.
• A class whose command no workflow runs counts as open, never as waived. The gate already
  refuses both; counting a dead command as a stated choice would launder a hole into a decision,
  which is the one thing this line exists to prevent.
• A project with no stack file reports nothing at all, rather than a floor of zero. Not started
  is not failing, which is the rule the empty copy follows everywhere else.

The second commit is a review-stage refactor kept out of the implementing diff: a one-line
pass-through (floorFor) with a single caller, which docs/standards/GLOBAL.md names directly.

Verified by

• The real repo, in the terminal. node checks/check.mjs prints
  floor: docs/standards/node.md proves 4 of the 6 risk classes with a command CI runs, and waives 2.
  followed by the two waiver reasons quoted from node.md. Checked against the table by hand: 4
  command rows, builds and dependencies waived as not applicable.
• The real board, rendered. node checks/progress.mjs --page puts the floor line directly under
  the gates line, carrying the same 4 of 6 and the same two reasons, naming checks/check-stack.mjs
  as the reader and linking docs/standards/node.md. .strip has no CSS rule and .line is a
  stacking block, so the third line needed no layout measurement.
• Red first, then proven to bite. The tests were written before the code and failed on the
  missing export. Each new layer was then mutation-tested: dropping the limit sentence from the
  board summary fails 2 tests, rendering the line when no stack exists fails 1, and counting an
  unwired command as proven fails the derivation suite. None of them pass vacuously.
• The seam, by comparison rather than assertion. One test renders the board line and formats the
  terminal line from the same floor object and asserts both carry the same count and every waiver
  with its reason, the way the printed board was proved against the served one in S-05.
• A fresh copy. node checks/drill.mjs --require-walk green. The clearing step now reads the
  floor before it deletes node.md (so the later assertion cannot pass by the report being silent
  all along) and asserts it reads nothing after.
• All sixteen suites green, check.test.mjs 69 to 76 and board-strip.test.mjs 7 to 14.
• One regression found and fixed during the work, by the existing gate suite: sharing the parse
  between the gate and the report first starved the design detector's half of its workflow lines
  whenever no stack file existed. check-stack.test.mjs failed on it; the two facts are now read
  separately.

Not verified here: whether any command a stack file names is a good check. That is deliberate
and is the limit the line states about itself.