M4: close out Save Points, with browser verification

Closes M4. The review's three findings are fixed, the durability rule the
specification always implied is now enforced, and M3's and M4's browser
behaviour has been verified in a real browser for the first time.

B-1 -- the Save Point list was an N+1 that loaded whole Action rows,
narration included, to answer "does a row exist here". It is now one bulk
two-column coordinate query plus one lineage: 53 SELECTs for 25 Save Points
became 5, and the count no longer grows with the list. The clause is an OR
of exact (branch, depth) pairs rather than two IN lists, because the cross
product would report a Save Point resolved on the strength of another one's
depth existing on this one's branch. A test builds exactly that trap.

B-2 -- reclassified during closeout from "missing warning" to a behaviour
defect, and fixed as one. STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS §19 says a named checkpoint
remains until explicitly deleted, and §28 already required future cleanup to
retain checkpoint-referenced paths; a cascade that silently removed Save
Points with a branch violated both, and a warning would only have documented
the violation. A branch a Save Point names can no longer be deleted. The
request is refused with the offending Save Points named, the user deletes
them explicitly -- which deletes no story -- and the branch then goes. The
scope is the subtree, because deleting a branch takes its descendants. Both
delete controls disable and explain. Recorded as a new §19.1; models.py,
TECHNICAL-DESIGN §8.8 and DATA-MODEL §8 had all recorded the cascade as the
rule and now record the refusal.

An earlier pass in this same closeout had kept the cascade and added a
warning. That was the wrong fix and its tests were replaced rather than left
standing, since they pinned the defect.

B-3 -- the D11/L03 automation never left one process, so it could not
distinguish durable state from a live Python object. It now spawns real
server processes, kills the first, and reads the campaign back with the
second.

C-5 -- creating a Save Point takes the campaign's turn lock. "Save where I
am" has to name one committed position, and the head is what a turn in
flight is about to move. Rename and Delete deliberately do not take it.

The architecture is untouched: a Save Point is still name + note +
(branch, depth), and restore is still coordinate -> head.move_to_node ->
head.move_to -> attempts.restore_state. No second restore path, no state
copied into a checkpoint, no fork on restore.

Browser verification -- the first in this project, and it covers both
milestones. Firefox 154.0.1 through geckodriver over the W3C WebDriver
protocol, driving the rendered DOM: 47/47 checks, twice, on independent
databases, no console errors. M3's Undo/Redo enable states, transcript
movement, Retry and the take pager, divergence retiring Redo; M4's whole
Save Point lifecycle, both confirmations, and the new branch-delete refusal
including its recovery. No dependency was added: the WebDriver client is
stdlib HTTP.

No application defect was found by the browser. Four failures occurred, all
in the harness -- a wrong SPA route, a wait comparing transcript length when
the empty-story placeholder is longer than the first turn, a fixture
deleting the branch it was reading, and a reload assertion that sampled
once instead of waiting. The last was checked against the app before being
called a harness bug.

Tests: 698 backend pass (was 680), 60 M4, 94 M3 history, 66 export/
migrations, 93 security/local-only. Frontend lint and build clean, Docker
build clean, loopback binding unchanged. No assertion weakened, no skip
added.

Planning: STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS §19.1 is the only behavioural change and it
strengthens §19. V1-ACCEPTANCE-TESTS records D11-D14, I04, L03 and the
E-series, keeping automated, live-runtime and browser evidence distinct, and
weakens no pass condition. DATA-MODEL records the coordinate with the retry
measurement that settles it. BROWSER-UX-SPEC rules for Moment over Turn.
BUILD-MILESTONES marks M4 COMPLETE, closes M3's browser condition, and lists
what M5 inherits. VERSION adds v2.6.

No new ADR: ADR 005 already decides that history is preserved rather than
overwritten, and §19.1 is that decision applied to checkpoint-referenced
history.

M4 is closed. M5 may now be briefed; it has not been started.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PWU4gTfLYY6Qq9U7aa9Qw2

planning/STORY-BRANCH-SEMANTICS.md

@@ -467,6 +467,39 @@ They should not be removed by:
 - branch divergence,
 - ordinary history cleanup.
 
+### 19.1 A checkpoint protects the history it names
+
+Added at M4 closeout, from implementation evidence.
+
+§19's durability rule is only meaningful if something enforces it against the
+operations that delete history. Deleting a branch deletes that branch and
+everything forked from it, so a checkpoint naming a position anywhere in that
+subtree would go with it — and go silently, because the story is what the user
+asked to delete and the named moments are not mentioned in the request.
+
+Therefore:
+
+- **A branch cannot be deleted while a checkpoint names a position on it, or on
+  any branch forked from it.** The deletion is refused, not amended: nothing is
+  half-deleted, and no checkpoint is quietly relocated or dropped.
+- **The refusal names the checkpoints standing in the way**, so the user knows
+  what to act on rather than being told only that something is in the way.
+- **The user resolves it by deleting the checkpoint explicitly**, which is
+  §19's "until explicitly deleted" being honoured rather than worked around.
+  Deleting a checkpoint still deletes no story (§25), so the recovery costs the
+  user nothing they wanted to keep.
+- **The scope is the subtree**, not the named branch alone.
+
+This is the same rule §28 already anticipates for a future cleanup feature —
+*retain paths referenced by checkpoints* — applied to the one deletion path that
+exists today. A cleanup or discarded-history feature added later must honour it
+too, and must not acquire a way to delete a checkpoint as a side effect of
+deleting history.
+
+Campaign deletion is not an exception to this and needs no rule: deleting a
+campaign deletes everything in it, checkpoints included, and that is what the
+user asked for.
+
 ## 20. Checkpoint Restore
 
 Restoring a checkpoint: