docs: the staffing fix, measured

Run 5 is run 3's task against the new staffing: 5 roles → 3, 14 skill
deliveries → 4, 50KB of prompt → 24KB, and 1 of 9 delivered skills
applicable → 4 of 4. The agents produced exactly the structure the new
team's task specifies — questions.md, evidence.md, REPORT.md — with zero
writes outside /mission/repo.

The baseline says plainly that the SCORES barely moved, because they did:
run 5 is one `pass` and three `not_applicable`. What changed is what
`not_applicable` means — "no machine-checkable consequence" rather than
"this skill had nothing to do with this phase". Halving the prompt is real
but incidental. The finding is that the denominator was wrong: seven of
run 3's nine skills were never applicable, so any ratio over them measured
staffing, not skill use.

Handoff item 1 is closed and the orphan-container section now records what
was actually in it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018i9Ten1LU4jUr5d7TAWda9

docs/SKILL-USE-BASELINE.md

@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ drift, and then the score would pass while the mission loop still stalled.
 
 ## The runs
 
-Four missions on the container/ZeroClaw tier, local stack. Runs 1–3 are
+Five missions on the container/ZeroClaw tier, local stack. Runs 1–3 are
 `research_only`; run 3 uses the **same task text as run 2**, so the only
 variable is the scorer. Run 4 is `research_and_code` against a real repository,
 because a research mission writes no code and makes no commits — the TDD and
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ delivered yet):
 | `code-review-checklist` | 1 | n/a | n/a |
 | `criterion-benchmarking` | 1 | n/a | n/a |
 
-**n = 4 runs. No spread is reported because four cannot establish one.** This
+**n = 5 runs. No spread is reported because five cannot establish one.** This
 is a baseline in the sense of "the first honest number", not in the sense of
 `metrics-baseline-comparison.md`, which requires enough runs to see the noise
 floor before any change is judged against it.
@@ -237,11 +237,37 @@ workflow.** That distinction matters: a reader who saw only "7 of 9 skills
 scored not_applicable" would conclude the skills are useless, when what the
 number actually measures is a staffing default.
 
-`continuous_research` names its own team; the other four recipes all default to
-`rust_sdlc`. `research_only` has no correct existing template to point at —
-`papers_research` is arXiv-shaped, `insight_research` is vault-shaped, and
-`codebase_research` needs a repo — so the fix is an operator decision, not a
-one-line edit, and is deliberately left open.
+**Fixed the same day, and measured again as run 5.** `research_only` now
+defaults to a new `topic_research` team, and `default_phase_teams` lets a
+recipe staff each phase *purpose* separately — `research_and_code` and
+`security_hardening` give their research phases the research team and keep
+`rust_sdlc` for coding. `benchmark` and `refactor` were checked and left alone:
+one coding-purpose phase each, correctly staffed already.
+
+Run 5 is run 3's task, re-run against the new staffing:
+
+| | run 3 | run 5 |
+|---|---|---|
+| roles staffed | 5 | **3** |
+| distinct skills delivered | 9 | **4** |
+| total deliveries | 14 | **4** |
+| prompt bytes across roles | 50,449 | **24,065** |
+| skills applicable to the phase | 1 of 9 | **4 of 4** |
+
+**Read the last row carefully, and not the ones above it.** The *scores* barely
+moved: run 5 has one `pass` and three `not_applicable`. What changed is what
+`not_applicable` now means. In run 3 it mostly meant "this skill had nothing to
+do with what this phase was doing"; in run 5 it means "this skill's procedure
+has no machine-checkable consequence" — which is the honest, permanent reason,
+and the one this measurement was designed to report.
+
+Cutting the prompt in half is real but incidental. The finding is that the
+denominator was wrong: seven of the nine skills in run 3 were never applicable,
+so any ratio computed over them measured staffing, not skill use.
+
+The agents also produced exactly the structure the new team's task specifies —
+`research/questions.md`, `research/evidence.md`, `research/REPORT.md` — with
+zero writes outside `/mission/repo`.
 
 ### 8. The check that got it wrong first
 
@@ -262,7 +288,7 @@ anyone else's.
 
 ## Honest limits
 
-- **Four runs, one tier, two workflows.** Nothing here generalises to the
+- **Five runs, one tier, two workflows.** Nothing here generalises to the
   microVM or session tiers.
 - **The TDD check is one-sided and the common Rust case is undecidable.** It
   catches "wrote source, never ran a test". It cannot confirm red-first,