Regenerate microsoft/knowledge from upstream BCApps instructions

The previous LLM-generated knowledge files contained factual
hallucinations. The most visible was the claim that `FindFirst` /
`FindLast` "forces a full-table scan" on an unfiltered record - it does
not; those APIs return a single row via the current key.

Other inaccuracies the audit found and fixed:

* `FindSet(true)` was described as "taking a LockTable". The correct
  upstream phrasing is that `FindSet(true)` sets
  `ReadIsolation::UpdLock` on the read. UpdLock and LockTable are
  related but distinct mechanisms.
* The list of production-scale tables had been invented beyond the
  upstream source (e.g. "Detailed Cust. Ledg. Entry") without a
  citation. The regenerated list matches the ten tables upstream lists
  with their P95 row counts.
* `SetLoadFields` guidance had been augmented with an extra mechanism
  claim ("the database resolves the filter using the index without
  hydrating the value") not present in upstream.

Approach: full regeneration of `microsoft/knowledge/` from the six
upstream BCApps Code Review instruction files, with Microsoft Learn /
the AL language reference as a secondary source. Every claim in every
regenerated file is anchored to a verbatim upstream quote (or a Learn
URL); the audit trail lives in artifacts/trace-<domain>.json on the
session workspace.

The PR #11 transaction/error-handling cluster is preserved verbatim:

* performance/understand-implicit-transaction-boundary.md
* performance/codeunit-run-as-atomic-sub-operation.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* performance/codeunit-run-requires-prior-commit-inside-transaction.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* performance/use-tryfunction-for-error-catching-not-rollback.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* performance/avoid-commit-inside-loops.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* security/commitbehavior-attribute-scopes-explicit-commits.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* testing/transactionmodel-attribute-governs-test-transactions.{md,good.al,bad.al}

These articles already cite Microsoft Learn and were carefully
cross-referenced; the regeneration skips their topics rather than
duplicating them.

File counts after regeneration:

  performance   35 .md  (5 preserved + 30 new)
  privacy       17 .md
  security      18 .md  (1 preserved + 17 new)
  style         33 .md
  testing        1 .md  (preserved)
  ui            19 .md
  upgrade       18 .md

Total 141 atomic knowledge files, each strictly one rule. All pass
.github/scripts/validate_frontmatter.py with 0 errors and 0 warnings.

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

microsoft/knowledge/ui/cosmetic-styles-need-no-textual-context.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+bc-version: [all]
+domain: ui
+keywords: [style, cosmetic, attention, strong, subordinate, accessibility]
+technologies: [al]
+countries: [w1]
+application-area: [all]
+---
+
+# Cosmetic styles need no textual context
+
+## Description
+
+A field's `Style` property controls text formatting. Some style values are purely **cosmetic** — they change visual appearance but do not convey semantic meaning. Cosmetic styles never require additional context and must not be reported as accessibility findings:
+
+- `None`, `Standard`
+- `StandardAccent` (Blue)
+- `Strong` (Bold), `StrongAccent` (Blue + Bold)
+- `Attention` (Red + Italic), `AttentionAccent` (Blue + Italic)
+- `Subordinate` (Grey)
+
+This list is exhaustive — every other named style on the platform either falls outside the cosmetic set or is one of the three semantic styles documented in `semantic-styles-need-independent-textual-meaning.md`.
+
+The same rule applies whether the cosmetic style is set via `Style` directly or via a `StyleExpr` Text variable. If the resolved value at runtime is one of the cosmetic styles above, the field is safe.
+
+## Best Practice
+
+Use cosmetic styles freely for visual emphasis. Do not treat the use of `Attention`, `Strong`, or any other cosmetic value as an accessibility issue — the colors and weights are purely presentational and carry no meaning a screen reader needs to convey.