feat(workflows): skeptical review gate for inbox change proposals

The value gate asks whether to take an inbox item, never whether the proposed change is right. process-inbox gains a Skeptical Review for proposals that change shared assets: a written question battery (fit for all consumers, conflicts elsewhere, effect on common activities, enhancement, simplification, plus at least three change-specific questions), ending in a summary and recommendation Craig approves before the change lands. In a no-approvals session, behavior-changing proposals park instead of self-applying: prepared diff in working/, a [#B] VERIFY carrying the decision package, a reply to the sender. Wording-only fixes proceed, logged.

monitor-inbox's act-vs-file rule and protocols.org's act-now line gain the matching exception so all three statements of the rule agree. protocols.org's tables picked up the org-table-standard reflow in the same pass.

The motivating case is today's spec-decisions handoff. I applied it as-is, and the after-the-fact review surfaced a lost state and a vacuous gate pass the battery would have caught up front.

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.ai/workflows/monitor-inbox.org b/.ai/workflows/monitor-inbox.org
index dd545d9..1639f3b 100644
--- a/.ai/workflows/monitor-inbox.org
+++ b/.ai/workflows/monitor-inbox.org
@@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ Every accepted handoff (one that clears process-inbox's value gate) is then eith
 
 When you decide to act, queue the work and do it. Don't ask first.
 
+*Exception:* a proposal to change a shared asset (template workflow, rule, skill, synced script) or a substantive convention never qualifies for silent act-now, however clear and bounded it looks — it routes through process-inbox's *Skeptical Review*, which carries its own approval (or, in a no-approvals session, park) step.
+
 *File a task when any of these hold:*
 - It needs a judgment call, a design decision, or an option the user would pick.
 - It's large, multi-session, or sprawls across many files.