Scope tableextension requirement to Normal fields lacking a classification

The requirement to declare DataClassification explicitly in a tableextension
applies to the Normal fields it adds; FlowFields and FlowFilters are
SystemMetadata automatically and are covered by their own article. Being
added by a table extension is also not itself a finding - the finding is a
Normal field added by a table extension that has no valid explicit
DataClassification.

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

microsoft/knowledge/privacy/data-classification-required-on-pii-fields.md

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ application-area: [all]
 
 ## Description
 
-`DataClassification` tells the platform what kind of data a table field stores so that telemetry, GDPR data-subject requests, and the platform's audit surfaces can treat it correctly. A field declared inside a table object can set its own value or inherit a valid table-level value; a field added by a `tableextension` has no table-level value to inherit and must always set its own. When neither scope supplies a valid classification, the field remains `ToBeClassified` — a placeholder meaning "not yet reviewed", not a safe default. Leaving a field that actually holds PII (an email address, a customer name, an employee code) as `ToBeClassified`, or classifying it as `SystemMetadata` ("no user or customer data"), are both under-classifications and privacy bugs, even though the code still compiles.
+`DataClassification` tells the platform what kind of data a table field stores so that telemetry, GDPR data-subject requests, and the platform's audit surfaces can treat it correctly. A field declared inside a table object can set its own value or inherit a valid table-level value; a `tableextension` has no table-level value to inherit, so every Normal field it adds must set its own. When neither scope supplies a valid classification, the field remains `ToBeClassified` — a placeholder meaning "not yet reviewed", not a safe default. Leaving a field that actually holds PII (an email address, a customer name, an employee code) as `ToBeClassified`, or classifying it as `SystemMetadata` ("no user or customer data"), are both under-classifications and privacy bugs, even though the code still compiles.
 
 ## Best Practice
 

microsoft/knowledge/privacy/table-level-data-classification-cascades.md

@@ -21,4 +21,4 @@ See sample: `table-level-data-classification-cascades.good.al`.
 
 ## Anti Pattern
 
-Reporting every Normal field without an explicit `DataClassification` when its own table already supplies a valid default, or requiring redundant field-level declarations that repeat the table value. The mirror-image mistake is waving through an unclassified Normal field added by a `tableextension` because the base table carries a default — a table extension inherits nothing. A real issue exists when neither scope supplies a valid classification, when a field's data requires an override of the inherited value, or when the field is added by a table extension.
+Reporting every Normal field without an explicit `DataClassification` when its own table already supplies a valid default, or requiring redundant field-level declarations that repeat the table value. The mirror-image mistake is waving through an unclassified Normal field added by a `tableextension` because the base table carries a default — a table extension inherits nothing. A real issue exists when neither scope supplies a valid classification, when a field's data requires an override of the inherited value, or when a Normal field added by a `tableextension` lacks a valid explicit `DataClassification`.