docs: publish the 2026-07-29 review, the ADR log, and retire ISSUES.md - #150

The 17 architecture decision records existed only on design/swift-binding,
which descends from the pre-release development lineage. That lineage shares
no history with origin/main, so nothing on it can reach the published
repository through a pull request, and the decision log has been invisible
from every branch that can.

Copied verbatim, no edits: these are Accepted records and their bodies are
frozen. A path checkout is used rather than a merge precisely because the two
lineages have no common ancestor.

The Swift binding itself remains stranded on that branch and still needs a
route onto this lineage.

ISSUES.md had grown to 1868 lines across 119 numbered entries and could no
longer be read whole by a session that also needed to hold the code — the
2026-07-29 review deliberately withheld it from its reviewers for that reason,
which is an admission that the log had stopped being usable as an input. It
also duplicated a tracker the project already used, under a second set of
identifiers, and its statuses drifted: I149 and I150 were both still marked
OPEN although I150 shipped in PR #128 and I149 shipped two commits ago.

Of the 14 open and 3 deferred entries, 6 were already represented in existing
issues (I147 in #116, I149 and I150 in #102, I151 in #107, I152 and I154 in
#106). The remaining 11 were filed as #138-#148, each carrying its entry
verbatim plus a header naming its original id and source review. I78 needed
its header line preserved as well, because it recorded a correction that
contradicts the caveat in its own body.

The 83 entries marked fixed were not migrated. They describe completed work
and remain in git history at 0ffe3bc. This is the real cost of the change and
ADR 0017 records it as such: those entries are no longer discoverable by grep
in a checkout, and some of them hold genuine decision rationale.

The ~167 I<number> markers in source comments are deliberately left alone.
Most refer to entries closed long ago with no GitHub equivalent, so rewriting
them would delete provenance across 167 sites for no navigational gain.
ARCHITECTURE.md gains a note explaining what they mean and how to retrieve
the retired file; the live links in README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md and THEORY.md
now point at docs/adr/ and the issue tracker instead.

Two things the docs review caught.

The ADR log was ported from the retired lineage with its `ISSUES.md`
citations intact, which is correct — an Accepted record is superseded, not
edited — but README.md and ARCHITECTURE.md now route readers to `docs/adr/`
as *the* decision log, so a reader following that pointer lands on citations
with no way to resolve them. Record 0000 is the register overview rather than
a decision, so it carries the breadcrumb for the whole log; 0017 records the
same gap as an explicit consequence of the retirement it decides. Record
0000's claim that smaller decisions "live in ISSUES.md" was simply false as
of the commit that deletes the file.

The review record put the I143 regression 'five commits' before its own
baseline; `git rev-list --count 04534c0..d87e670` is 2.