docs(reviewer): research alignments + 2 new Q1/Q2 + reordered agenda

Adds the two research-track questions to the front of the queue, where
they belong for a reader whose publication line maps directly onto our
research-track roadmap entries.

briefing.md gains two new sections:

  * Research alignments — a 6-row table mapping the reader's research
    threads (decorated DCE, canonical tessellations, hyperideal
    rigidity, optimal cone placement, polygon Laplacian, Schläfli
    machinery) onto concrete phases of the roadmap, with the closest
    published line cited generically (year + venue only).

  * What's new on this snapshot — the 6 new porting phases + 9 new
    citations + Phase 9f (RESEARCH, no Java parent) + output_uv_map
    extension to Inversive-Distance.

questions.md restructures the question set from 5 to 7:

  * Q1 (NEW) — research-track alignment: which of 9d.2 / 9f / 10c /
    10c′ would unblock concrete experiments?
  * Q2 (NEW) — decorated-DCE API surface: A/B/C named parameter vs
    new solver vs property-map auto-detect?
  * Q3 — Phase 9b-analytic (was Q2)
  * Q4 — Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive (was Q1)
  * Q5 — GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship (was Q5)
  * Q6 — CGAL submission packaging (was Q4)
  * Q7 — The "no" question (was the trailing section)

  Also drops Q3 from the previous list (CP-Euclidean output_uv_map),
  since that question is now answered (Phase 9c, runtime error today,
  on the deferred list — no reviewer input needed).

  Adds a final "After the meeting — would you collaborate?" block so
  the post-meeting collaboration options (acknowledgement / co-author /
  cadence / PRs) do not surprise the reader on the day.

agenda.md reorders §2 to match the new question order; the timing
shifts Q1/Q2/Q3 (research) to the front and Q4/Q6 (project
management) to the back.  Memo template at the bottom now has 7
named answer slots instead of 5 numbered ones.

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

doc/reviewer/agenda.md

@@ -36,35 +36,50 @@ Goal: they leave §1 with a mental map of what's where.
 
 **Cue to move on**: when they have no more "where is X?" questions.
 
-## §2 The five questions — 30 min
+## §2 The seven questions — 35 min
 
-Goal: get clear answers to as many of the 5 questions in
-[`questions.md`](questions.md) as possible.  Order matters:
+Goal: get clear answers to as many of the 7 questions in
+[`questions.md`](questions.md) as possible.  Order is chosen so the
+research-relevant questions come *first* (their answer has the largest
+downstream effect on the roadmap):
 
-1. **Q4 first** (CGAL submission strategy — single package vs five).
-   This sets the framing for the rest.  ~5 min.
-2. **Q1** (Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive).  ~5 min.
-3. **Q2** (Phase 9b-analytic — is the 6× speedup worth ~2 weeks?).
-   May trigger longer math discussion; cap at 10 min and offer to
-   continue async.
-4. **Q5** (GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship).  ~5 min.
-5. **Q3** (CP-Euclidean output_uv_map).  ~5 min.
+1. **Q1 — research-track alignment** (which of 9d.2 / 9f / 10c / 10c′
+   would unblock concrete experiments?).  ~8 min.  Most likely to
+   make them feel the project is genuinely *for* their work, not just
+   adjacent to it.
+2. **Q2 — decorated-DCE API surface** (A/B/C named parameter vs new
+   solver vs property-map auto-detect).  ~7 min.  Sets a concrete
+   shape we can sketch in code right after the meeting.
+3. **Q3 — Phase 9b-analytic** (Schläfli Hessian — implement now?).
+   ~8 min.  May trigger longer math discussion; cap at 10 min and
+   offer to continue async via the derivation note.
+4. **Q5 — GC-1 cross-validation co-authorship**.  ~4 min.  Read the
+   room: if they're warm, push; if cool, leave as "let me follow up
+   in writing".
+5. **Q4 — Phase 9c port-literal vs re-derive** (algorithm choice).
+   ~4 min.  Less critical than Q1–Q3 because we have a viable default
+   either way.
+6. **Q6 — CGAL submission packaging** (one package vs several).
+   ~4 min.  Project-management question; their answer is *advisory*
+   even if it's confident.
 
 **Trap to avoid**: don't relitigate any of the already-made decisions
 (e.g. Surface_mesh as default, Eigen as backend) unless they bring it
 up under "anything you'd say no to".  Move forward, not sideways.
+Keep Q4/Q6 *short* — they are project management; Q1–Q3 are the
+research-flavoured ones their time is best spent on.
 
-## §3 The "no" question — 5 min
+## §3 Q7 — the "no" question — 5 min
 
-Last paragraph of [`questions.md`](questions.md): *"Is there one
-architecture decision where you think 'no, that's the wrong call'?"*
+[`questions.md`](questions.md) §Q7: *"Is there one architecture
+decision where you think 'no, that's the wrong call'?"*
 
 Ask explicitly. Wait.  Don't fill silence.  Negative feedback at this
 phase is the highest-value information of the entire meeting.
 
 ## §4 Wrap-up — 5 min
 
-- **Summarise**: 1 sentence per Q1–Q5 answer.
+- **Summarise**: 1 sentence per Q1–Q7 answer.
 - **Next steps**: 
   - Items they offered to help on (if any) → I'll send a follow-up
     email within 48 h.
@@ -97,12 +112,13 @@ phase is the highest-value information of the entire meeting.
   Reviewer:  ____
   Duration:  ____ min
   
-  Q1 answer:  ____
-  Q2 answer:  ____
-  Q3 answer:  ____
-  Q4 answer:  ____
-  Q5 answer:  ____
-  "No" pointer:  ____
+  Q1 answer (research-track alignment):  ____
+  Q2 answer (decorated-DCE API):         ____
+  Q3 answer (Phase 9b-analytic):         ____
+  Q4 answer (Phase 9c port choice):      ____
+  Q5 answer (GC-1 co-authorship):        ____
+  Q6 answer (CGAL packaging):            ____
+  Q7 "no" pointer:                       ____
   
   Action items:
     [ ] (within 48 h)  ____