Address second round of Jesper Schulz-Wedde's review on PR #156

- dimension-management-wiring.md/.good.al: split into the two distinct
  models the article was conflating - master data (Default Dimension
  records via ValidateDimValueCode/SaveDefaultDim) vs. transactional/
  document data (a single Dimension Set ID assembled via AddDimSource +
  GetDefaultDimID, verified against BCApps' ExchRateAdjmtProcess.Codeunit.al).
  Added a compiling document-table example alongside the existing master
  table one.
- Deleted api-page-flowfields-must-be-calcfields (.md/.good.al/.bad.al):
  Microsoft's own FlowFields documentation states a FlowField used as a
  control's direct source expression is automatically calculated on any
  page - no API-page exception is documented, and none could be
  reproduced.
- prefer-email-module.bad.al/.md: Codeunit Mail has no Send/GetErrorDesc
  members; fixed to the real current 7-argument CreateMessage signature,
  and corrected the claim that the legacy path "still runs" - its base
  implementation no longer sends anything, only raises integration events.
- check-post-line-batch-pattern.md/.good.al: reframed from a universal
  invariant to the standard shape, naming the real Gen./Item/CA/Res./Job/
  Insurance/Mfg. Item/FA Jnl.-Check Line/-Post Line/-Post Batch codeunits
  it's based on. Added the missing Check Line companion codeunit so the
  good fixture is internally complete.
- test-data-must-be-random-and-complete.good.al: removed leftover
  "collision-free" wording contradicting the already-corrected article text.
- fixed-choice-set-must-use-enum-not-integer.md: removed the reintroduced
  state-count heuristic ("the line is the state count"), aligned with
  binary-choice-must-be-boolean.md's semantics-based distinction.
- namespace-must-be-verified-from-source.md: removed the false claim that
  the compiler and AL Language Server use different namespace-resolution
  rules.
- intrinsic-al-functions-must-use-modern-casing.md: removed the unverified
  claim that PascalCase is the VS Code formatter's default output.

Worklist completeness: added cues for the 8 rules in data-modeling,
testing, performance, and web-services that had none (Jesper's explicit
ask), plus the same gap in all 7 style rules from this PR (not explicitly
named this round, but the identical systemic issue) - 15 cues total across
al-data-modeling-review.md, al-testing-review.md, al-performance-review.md,
al-web-services-review.md, and al-style-review.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/check-post-line-batch-pattern.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ application-area: [all]
 
 ## Description
 
-Every journal-based posting routine in Business Central is split across three companion codeunits with distinct, non-overlapping responsibilities: `Check Line` validates one line, `Post Line` writes exactly one line to the ledger, and `Post Batch` loops both across the journal. A document posting routine (posting one document at a time) calls `Post Line` directly and skips `Post Batch`. A new posting routine that blurs this split either misses functionality other code expects to call directly, or exposes an interaction surface it shouldn't.
+Business Central's own journal-based posting routines consistently follow a three-codeunit split with distinct, non-overlapping responsibilities — `Codeunit "Gen. Jnl.-Check Line"` / `"Gen. Jnl.-Post Line"` / `"Gen. Jnl.-Post Batch"` for the general journal, and the same `<Journal>-Check Line` / `<Journal>-Post Line` / `<Journal>-Post Batch` shape repeated for Item, Resource, Job, Fixed Asset, Insurance, and Cost Accounting journals: `Check Line` validates one line, `Post Line` writes exactly one line to the ledger, and `Post Batch` loops both across the journal. A document posting routine (posting one document at a time) calls `Post Line` directly and skips `Post Batch`. This is the standard shape to evaluate a new journal-based posting routine against, not a platform-enforced constraint — a routine with a genuinely different transaction/reuse shape may legitimately organize itself differently. But a new routine that blurs this split without a specific reason either misses functionality other code expects to call directly, or exposes an interaction surface it shouldn't.
 
 ## Best Practice