docs(reviewer): anonymise reviewer references; profile-based framing

Replaces the "Springborn / Bobenko alumnus" placeholder in the reviewer
materials (briefing, questions, agenda, README) and in
locked-vs-flexible.md with a research-profile description:

  active researcher in the decorated-DCE / Penner-coordinates /
  canonical-tessellations / hyperideal-polyhedra line, treated as a
  peer most likely to USE conformallab++ as numerical infrastructure
  for their own future experiments — not merely to evaluate it.

Citations to the published literature (Springborn 2020 paper, etc.)
remain untouched.  Only personal references to the prospective
reviewer were anonymised.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>

doc/architecture/locked-vs-flexible.md

@@ -6,8 +6,9 @@
 > across the whole codebase) and which are **opportunistic** (made
 > on first principles and easy to revisit).
 >
-> **Why this matters now.** A v0.9.0 + Springborn-Bobenko-alumnus
-> external review (May 2026) is the right moment to surface these
+> **Why this matters now.** A v0.9.0 snapshot + external review by
+> an active researcher in the decorated-DCE / canonical-tessellation /
+> hyperideal-polyhedra line is the right moment to surface these
 > decisions before they ossify further.  If any of the *locked*
 > decisions need revisiting, this is the cheapest moment in the
 > project's life to do so.

doc/reviewer/README.md

@@ -1,7 +1,12 @@
 # Reviewer meeting materials
 
-A single landing page for the three documents associated with the
-external-reviewer meeting (Springborn/Bobenko alumnus, May 2026).
+A single landing page for the three documents associated with an
+external-reviewer meeting.  The materials are written for a peer who
+actively publishes in discrete differential geometry — specifically
+the decorated-DCE / Penner-coordinates / hyperideal-polyhedra /
+canonical-tessellations research line — and who would potentially
+use conformallab++ as numerical infrastructure for their own future
+experiments.
 
 | Document | Audience | Purpose |
 |---|---|---|

doc/reviewer/agenda.md

@@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ productive).
 ## Opening — 5 min
 
 - **Thank-you** + ~30 s on why I value their time specifically
-  (Springborn/Bobenko background = best-positioned audience for
-  this material).
+  (active researcher in the exact line — decorated DCE, Penner
+  coordinates, canonical tessellations, hyperideal polyhedra — that
+  conformallab++ aspires to be infrastructure for; best-positioned
+  audience for the material AND the most likely future power user).
 - **Confirm format**: they've read `briefing.md`? Yes → skip ahead.
   No → take 3 min to walk through it together via the reviewer-hub
   URL.

doc/reviewer/briefing.md

@@ -1,12 +1,17 @@
 # Reviewer briefing — conformallab++
 
-> **Audience.** External reviewer with a discrete-conformal-geometry
-> background (Springborn / Bobenko alumnus, ~30 minutes lead-time
-> before the meeting).
+> **Audience.** Active researcher in discrete differential geometry —
+> specifically the research line around **decorated discrete conformal
+> equivalence**, **Penner coordinates on hyperbolic surfaces**,
+> **canonical Delaunay tessellations of decorated surfaces**, and
+> **hyperideal polyhedra**.  Treats the reader as a peer who is more
+> likely to *use* conformallab++ as numerical infrastructure for their
+> own future experiments than to merely evaluate it as a software
+> artefact.
 >
-> **Purpose of this document.** A single page they can read once
-> before the meeting and feel oriented — what the project is, what
-> we want from them, and where to look first.
+> **Purpose.** One page to read before the meeting: what is shipping,
+> which of the reader's research questions it could already support,
+> and where the gaps are that we would close together.
 
 ## In one paragraph
 

doc/reviewer/questions.md

@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ We can either:
   Down-side: longer; potential for new bugs not seen by the Java
   original's test cases.
 
-**Question**: which route do you prefer, and is there a Springborn-era
-reference implementation (Mathematica notebook, paper appendix) we
-should cross-validate against?
+**Question**: which route do you prefer, and is there a reference
+implementation (Mathematica notebook, paper appendix, other research
+codebase) we should cross-validate against?
 
 Context: `doc/roadmap/phases.md` §Phase 9c, `doc/roadmap/porting-status.md`.