precedence(ef): fix round 1 (F2, F7) -- correct a false transcription claim, cite RG95's real primary authority

F2: the disposition comment for RG112(a) claimed the electronic
transcription "carries NEITHER this paragraph's own worked example
NOR its own more specific Mass-proper rubric... exactly the
transcription's documented defect" -- wrong on both counts, checked
directly rather than taken on trust.

RG 112 has no worked example in any of the three source documents
(the transcription included) -- there was nothing to drop. The Holy
Family Mass propers' own 13-January rubric is absent from the
transcription not because it silently drops content it otherwise
has (the project's own documented defect, dropped calendarium
commemoration lines) but because that specific document (a 2006 web
capture) contains almost no Mass-propers text of any day: 5
Introit-line occurrences across 26,322 lines, against 61 and 402 in
the two photographic scans; its own "Proprium de Tempore" page is a
table of contents linking to PDFs the capture never pulled in. A
coverage gap in a partial web capture, not an instance of the
narrower, different defect the methodology note actually describes.
The ruling is unaffected -- the propers' quotation is real, on two
independent photographic scans, and settles 13 January on its own --
only the attribution is struck, here and in test_precedence_ef.ml
(the register and the task report are corrected separately).

F7: RG 95's own second paragraph -- present in all three documents,
including the transcription -- is a more direct, occurrence-level
authority for the exact collision than RG 112(a): "if two feasts of
the same Divine Person... occur together, the one higher in the
table is kept, the other omitted." Added as the primary citation on
disposition's RG112(a) branch, with RG 112(a) and the propers' note
kept as corroboration. Also corrects RG 112(b)'s own framing: it is
bidirectional ("et vicissim"), and only the Lord-feast-wins direction
(RG 16(a)) is implemented -- the Sunday-wins direction has no witness
anywhere in this codebase's data and was wrongly described as already
covered.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions