Docs: consolidate active planning and archive historical material

The planning package had grown to where a new agent could not tell what was
authoritative. Phase 0 execution prompts sat beside the specification; four
completed milestone reports sat beside the current one; and upstream AI-DnD's
own `plan/` build log and `docs/` project site still described a hosted,
scripted, multi-user product with accounts — every screenshot in it showed a
Scripts tab and a Sign up button, none of which has existed since M2.

`planning/archive/` now holds the history and says so in its own README:
`phase0/` for the research that chose AI-DnD, `milestone-reports/` for M1 and
M2, `decisions/` for ADR 008, the Phase-0-before-build gate Phase 0 satisfied.
`planning/reports/` holds only the current milestone's report, because that is
the one M4 planning has to read; it moves to the archive when M4's replaces it.

Deleted rather than archived: the Phase 0B execution prompts and the
handoff/status/summary documents, the Phase 0A discovery and triage reports,
upstream's `plan/` and `docs/` trees, and `frontend/README.md`, which was Vite's
template boilerplate. All of it is in Git history, and the two recommendation
reports carry every conclusion the deleted research reached.

Archived documents are kept verbatim. Paths written inside them point at where
those files were when the document was written, which is the point: an evidence
record that has been quietly edited is no longer evidence.

Active documentation is corrected where it pointed at the removed trees or
described removed capability as present. `DEVELOPMENT.md`'s "things M1 did not
touch" list had gone stale at M2 and claimed QuickJS scripting was still tested;
its test count was 604 against an actual 638. `README.md` loses the upstream CI
badge, which reported upstream's pipeline rather than this fork's, and a
reference to `backend/app/worldstate/engine.py`, a file that does not exist.
`planning/README.md` is rewritten as the documentation index.

New: `planning/PROJECT-SOURCES.md` and `planning/project-sources.txt`, the
manifest of what belongs in the ChatGPT project's Sources.

Source comments referring to the deleted trees are reworded; no behaviour
changes. 638 backend tests pass, frontend lints and builds, and a reference scan
over all 48 tracked Markdown files reports no unresolved path in active
documentation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NCbwH7yLGKsj1rhXXzKSCu

backend/tools/memory_ab.py

@@ -4,10 +4,9 @@ Reviewing a prompt tells you what it asks for. It does not tell you what a model
 does with it. This runs the real pipeline twice over the *same* blocks of the
 *same* story, changing only the prompt, and prints the memories side by side.
 
-What it showed the first time it was run, and why `MEMORY_MAX_WORDS` exists, is
-written up in `plan/18-persona-and-memory-quality.md`. Two consecutive memories
-from one story came back in two different persons, and the same model wrote 34
-words for one block and 105 for the next.
+Why `MEMORY_MAX_WORDS` exists is what it showed the first time it was run: two
+consecutive memories from one story came back in two different persons, and the
+same model wrote 34 words for one block and 105 for the next.
 
 Three things make it a fair test rather than a demonstration: