docs: continuous_improvement evidenced via self_audit — 7 of 12

With briefs in the record, the audit named the planted brief/condition
mismatch as a setup defect and proposed the brief change, and independently
found its own earlier quoting failures and proposed the fix already made.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>

docs/TEMPLATE-MATURITY.md

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ holding (it was 55 of 85 dangling once).
 | `codebase_research` | code_archeologist architecture_mapper flow_tracer vault_scribe | research_readonly | 11 | **yes** — first run 2026-09-22 |
 | `papers_research` | domain_scout paper_reader library_curator | research_web_readonly | 8 | **yes** — first run 2026-09-22 |
 | `insight_research` | implementation_tracker novelty_hunter publication_drafter | research_readonly | 8 | no |
-| `continuous_improvement` | brain_inspector improvement_proposer improvement_evaluator | research_readonly | 7 | **finds real patterns; diagnosis blocked by the record (fixed, unre-run)** |
+| `continuous_improvement` | brain_inspector improvement_proposer improvement_evaluator | research_readonly | 7 | **evidenced** — `self_audit` recipe; diagnosed a planted cause and found a real one |
 
 **Six of twelve are evidenced.** `backend` was exercised on 2026-09-22,
 the first time anything had been staffed from it: all five roles
@@ -184,6 +184,29 @@ followed:
 Counts, pattern-vs-incident discipline and verbatim evidence: shown. A
 correct diagnosis of a cause: not yet shown, and until now not possible.
 
+**Re-run with the fixes (mission 01a0cb54) — evidenced.** A second planted
+pair, whose lines now carry their briefs, joined the record (11 lines: 5 MET,
+6 UNMET). Launched again with nothing but `template_kind` and a repo, the
+audit copied the record into the checkout, and the judge confirmed its counts
+by grep against that copy. It passed on iteration 0. Its findings:
+
+- **The planted pattern, diagnosed correctly.** *"The requirement appeared in
+  the condition but not in the brief, so the agent was never asked to write
+  it … a setup defect."* The proposal is the right one: the brief, old wording
+  quoted, new wording asking for the section.
+- **A pattern nobody planted.** Its own two earlier UNMET audits (v3, and
+  01a0cb3f's first attempt) were judged for the same missing thing. It noted
+  that their briefs predate the record carrying briefs, so it could not tell
+  what those agents were told, and proposed "copy the record, quote verbatim".
+  That is the fix made by hand in `9ca71e5`, found independently from the
+  record alone.
+
+**Seven of twelve.** Limits: the planted pattern is one shape (brief omits a
+condition's requirement); the pre-fix lines still render two missions as
+`01a0cb38`, which the audit counted correctly as two lines; and it proposes
+into a markdown file. Nothing reads `research/IMPROVEMENT-AUDIT.md` or files
+`level_up_proposals` from it.
+
 **Two of the remaining six are still unevidenced**, and the other four
 are blocked on a target stack. The other nine are well-formed scaffolding:
 roles, prompts, brain seeds and resolving skills, and no run behind any of