Make standing cost money to keep, in both settings

Each pack declares a lifestyle tier, bought on the second rung and charged for
every cycle after: Corporate Ladder's car and address, the Frontier's bay and
the room over the Ellis place. Falling behind what the job expects costs
standing, in steps that steepen as standing rises. A Dispatch coordinator
keeping up fully nets -21 a week and earns the difference out of the days. No
engine change; the only interface change is a tier display format.

Sized by measurement, not feel (DECISIONS #36): a -2/week penalty is invisible
against Dispatch's standing gains, and a player who chases standing every turn
beats any flat penalty — 99 standing while buying nothing, and $2,245 richer
than one who kept up. Hence the top step.

Two defects fixed on the way. The conformance suite excluded debt from the
economic baseline by matching /debt|owed|loan/i on path names, which would have
counted every lifestyle tier into it; packs now declare tuning.baselineExcludes.
And 'the promotion leaves a player better off' pooled end balances across
archetypes that do not spend alike, so it measured the mix — it is now derived
from the upkeep arithmetic.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RxdJFbLq1rBKsUeticGV1g

docs/DECISIONS.md

@@ -547,3 +547,50 @@ ends around $8,300 over 200 turns, and money stops being a constraint. The
 direction is that rising standing brings rising expenses — the car, the place to
 live, the clothes a position expects. Upkeep entries are already gated
 conditions over state, so this is content work, not an engine change.
+
+## 36. Standing costs money to keep
+
+Built in both packs, with no engine change, exactly as #35 predicted.
+
+Each pack declares a `lifestyle` tier — Corporate Ladder's car and address, the
+Frontier's own horse and the room over the Ellis place — bought at a second-rung
+event and charged for every cycle thereafter. Dispatch nets +49 a week; with the
+car +19; with both, **-21**, so a coordinator keeping up has to earn the
+difference out of the days themselves. The Frontier runs the same shape at its
+own scale: +18, +11, +4 a run.
+
+**The charge that makes it a choice is levied in standing, not money.** A player
+whose lifestyle lags behind the job loses standing every cycle, in steps that
+steepen as standing rises. Both are gated on the second stage: the first rung
+pays too little for any of this, and charging a mailroom associate for a car
+would be a trap rather than a decision.
+
+Three things were measured rather than guessed, and all three changed the design:
+
+- **At -2 a week the charge was invisible.** Dispatch hands out standing several
+  points at a time, so a coordinator who bought nothing still finished pinned at
+  100. The step had to reach -4/-6 before ordinary play settled in the seventies.
+- **A player who chased standing every turn beat it anyway** — 99 standing while
+  buying nothing, and $2,245 richer than one who kept up. The lifestyle was a
+  pure loss to anybody paying attention, which is the opposite of the intent.
+  The top step (-14 above 80 standing) puts that player's ceiling at 82, so the
+  last fifteen points are bought rather than worked for.
+- **The Frontier's first numbers left a keeper on $8 after 200 turns.** That is
+  not pressure, it is the debt trap this pack was tuned twice to avoid; the room
+  went from 9 a run to 7.
+
+**Which upkeep counts as the baseline is now the pack's to declare.** The
+conformance suite used to exclude debt-gated entries by matching
+`/debt|owed|loan/i` against path names — the generic suite guessing at content's
+vocabulary, which #31 exists to prevent, and which would have silently counted
+every lifestyle tier at once into a baseline that is supposed to mean "the floor
+a player faces having opted into nothing." Packs now name those paths in
+`tuning.baselineExcludes`, and the suite fails if one is not declared state.
+
+**And a test that had passed for two releases was measuring the wrong thing.**
+"The promotion leaves a player better off" compared the end balances of promoted
+and unpromoted players pooled across archetypes — but which archetypes get
+promoted is not independent of how they spend, so the comparison mostly measured
+the mix. It inverted the moment there was something to spend money on. It is now
+derived from upkeep arithmetic, and the lifestyle's effect is tested with two
+players who differ in exactly one habit.