[irl-dan]

The SOFR example needs a small, inspectable demonstration of contract composition. Add an entry that adopts the existing decision-note program and a separate comparison-table requirement. The assessor now accepts the actual composed subject agreement instead of silently checking only the base program.

Add a credential-free native-runner configuration and installation/composition guide. Clarify that assessment coverage depends on inspected material and that individual findings, overall conclusions and the subject’s fulfillment claim must agree. No CLI or kernel source changes.

Validation: all 35 source check commands, including 20 unit tests, pass; both final-head CI jobs pass. A fresh public npm installation and six native Claude/API invocations are retained in the private development evidence (workspace IMP-087). Two composition runs produce the required table in 82 and 90 seconds and preserve inputs. The known-conflict assessment catches the 1,000-fold discrepancy and rejects the subject’s fulfillment claim. Remaining attribution, runtime-record and assessment consistency issues are disclosed in docs/qualification.md and the study. These observations are not a reliability or savings estimate.

Stacked on #42. The default main branch still lacks the example and the component package is not published; the instructions identify the candidate selection and remaining delivery gates. The bounded rehearsal is complete. Review this source change separately from publication and workshop readiness.