Complete AL review knowledge readiness (#108)

* Complete AL review knowledge readiness

Fill telemetry and Query coverage, strengthen thin review domains, correct audited content defects, and add deterministic cheap-model evaluation and reference-integrity safeguards.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Generalize review fixture discovery

Derive smoke cases from the leaf, domain, and paired-sample conventions so new leaves require no scoring-contract changes. Keep only exceptional selection/context overrides and fail when retrieval metadata cannot rank the selected article.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Preserve published field IDs in sample

Keep the existing Email and Contact Email field IDs unchanged, clarify that the sample represents an independent baseline, and use a local breaking-change rule for the generic smoke evaluation.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Clarify published field identity rules

State explicitly that a published field keeps its ID, name, and type while a replacement is added as a separate field under an unused ID.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Align field obsoletion sample baselines

Use Email field ID 3 as the shared baseline so the bad example demonstrates a same-ID rename while the good example retains the original field and adds a separate replacement.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

---------

Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com>

README.md

@@ -88,18 +88,9 @@ Code examples belong in separate files, not in the knowledge file itself. Knowle
 
 ## Scope
 
-BCQuality covers Business Central broadly — the application domains it supports, the technologies used to extend it, and the practices that keep implementations healthy. The scope includes:
+The current curated corpus is focused on **technical AL code review**: AppSource and compatibility, data modeling, error handling, events, interfaces, performance, privacy, Query objects, security, style, telemetry, testing, UI, upgrade, and web services. These are the domains backed by knowledge files and registered review leaves today.
 
-- **Business Central domains** — Finance, Supply Chain Management, Manufacturing, Jobs, Warehousing, Service, and the many other functional areas BC covers. Domain knowledge helps agents understand the business context they are working in.
-- AL language patterns and anti-patterns
-- PowerShell scripting for BC
-- Pipelines (AL-Go, GitHub Actions)
-- Business Central APIs
-- Power Platform integration
-- Telemetry and KQL
-- AppSource lifecycle
-
-A BC developer's actual job spans all of this, and BCQuality reflects that.
+Business Central functional domains (Finance, Supply Chain Management, Manufacturing, Jobs, Warehousing, Service), PowerShell, pipelines, and Power Platform remain valid future repository scope, but they are **not current coverage claims** until corresponding knowledge and action skills exist. Consumers should derive supported review scope from the live knowledge index and dispatched skills, not from roadmap breadth.
 
 ## How agents consume BCQuality
 
@@ -122,6 +113,7 @@ For the end-to-end flow — from orchestrator trigger through to how output reac
 
 ```
 ├── /skills/              # Global: entry-point skill + meta-skill contracts (READ, DO, WRITE)
+├── /evaluation/          # Neutral good/bad review fixtures and scoring contract
 ├── /.github/             # Actions and workflows
 ├── /microsoft/           # Microsoft-endorsed layer
 │   ├── /knowledge/       # Knowledge files by domain
@@ -158,6 +150,8 @@ Contributions are welcome. Before submitting a PR:
 
 CI runs validation on every PR. If your knowledge file has schema violations, missing sections, code blocks, or exceeds 100 lines, the check will fail with a clear error message.
 
+Companion samples must be referenced by filename from their article, and every referenced sample must exist. The review evaluation corpus under [`evaluation/`](evaluation/) adds one positive and one clean control for every registered AL review leaf; see [`evaluation/README.md`](evaluation/README.md) for credential-free validation and optional fast-model scoring.
+
 ## License
 
 [MIT](LICENSE)