docs: the operator moved the design ownership boundary, and the fence was ours

Round 1 ruled not-as-shown: 'He didn't go far enough, still looks like the
booth. I want him to consider the flow and the requirements — design touches,
layout, usability all belong to him.'

The handoff paragraph that said we were not asking for layout changes driven by
information architecture is void. design-dev's 'class additions only, no
reordering' was that constraint honoured, so the ruling corrects our brief
rather than his round — worth recording that way round, because the next session
reading only the artifact would read it as a design failure.

Flow, layout, usability and the requirements are his now; the IA is no longer
fenced off. What survives is split in two on purpose: correctness invariants
that are not design opinions, and engineering defaults we chose that he may now
argue with, where a dispute goes to the operator rather than being settled
between agents.

ROADMAP.md

@@ -157,6 +157,30 @@ weighed against the v1 path and lost on purpose.
   v1 gate: we own the information architecture (it is driven by the measurement
   above), design-dev owns the visual and interaction system.
 
+  🛑 **OPERATOR RULING 2026-09-23 — THE OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY MOVED, AND IT MOVED
+  OUR WAY OUT.** The first concept round was ruled **NOT ship-as-shown**:
+  *"He didn't go far enough, still looks like the booth. I want him to consider
+  the flow and the requirements — design touches, layout, usability all belong
+  to him."* **Flow, layout, usability and the REQUIREMENTS are design-dev's.**
+  The information architecture is no longer fenced off from him: what belongs on
+  which page, what groups with what, what the rail counts and whether a rail is
+  the right object at all are his calls to propose and build.
+
+  ⚠ **The fence was OURS, and it is what produced a reskin.** The handoff said
+  *"what we are not asking for: layout changes driven by information
+  architecture"*, and design-dev's *"markup changes are class additions only, no
+  reordering"* was that constraint honoured. The ruling corrects the brief, not
+  his round. **That paragraph is void — do not restate it.**
+
+  What survives is two tiers, deliberately separated because collapsing them is
+  how we over-fenced the first time. **Tier 1, correctness not taste:**
+  deterministic order (an operator directive — the RULE may change, but not into
+  "whatever the layout yields"), autoescape, blur keeps admitting it is
+  cosmetic, restart discipline. **Tier 2, engineering defaults WE chose and he
+  may now argue with:** the gallery working with JavaScript off, virtualization
+  parked, compare mode deferred. Tier 2 disputes go to the operator, not settled
+  between agents.
+
   ⚠ **The `/vor-ui` brief this row used to require was DECLINED, and rightly.**
   The row predates `docs/design/information-architecture.md`; with that doc, the
   landed templates and the seven handoff constraints in hand, a `/vor-ui` pass