Docs & site architecture: RFC process, FAQ, concepts/vision, breadcru…

[kikashy]

…mbs, neutral runtime

Documentation and static-site changes only. The normative specification, schema, and conformance corpus are unchanged, so there is no new spec version.

• Rename the change-proposal process JEP -> RFC (rfcs/0000-rfc-process.md) and seed draft RFCs 0001-0005 (pack manifest, Judgment Graph, evidence reference, planner interface, pack discovery). Update README/GOVERNANCE/CONTRIBUTING/PR template; record the rename in CHANGELOG (JEP kept only as history).
• Add FAQ.md (47 entries), including a "Skills, tools, and agent integration" section whose "Skills and Tools" subsection answers the SKILL.md / codified- skill objection honestly, with a static SVG integration diagram.
• Add docs/architecture/vision.md (non-normative layered picture) with three static SVG diagrams, and docs/concepts/comparison.md (vs DMN/OPA/BPMN/rules).
• Site information architecture: a Concepts hub, breadcrumbs on every page, footer "Project & docs"/"Concepts" hubs, nav compaction, and a reachability fix (no orphaned pages) guarded by a standing test.
• Implementations: replace the Protoss CLI listing with the vendor-neutral judgment-pack reference runtime (which inherited the CLI); remove the Protoss-branded on-site CLI page. Every page is now vendor-neutral (Protoss survives only in the changelog as history).
• All diagrams render as static SVG to preserve the strict script-src 'none'.
• Tests: 45 passing (added breadcrumb/orphan-guard, concepts-hub, FAQ-skills, implementations-runtime, and framing invariants).

Summary

Describe the problem and the proposed change.

Interoperability evidence

Explain why this belongs in the shared specification rather than an extension, profile, or product.

Compatibility

• No normative effect
• Backward compatible
• Breaking research-preview change

Describe reader, writer, semantic, and migration impact.

Conformance

List positive, negative, boundary, or adversarial cases added or changed.

Security and privacy

Describe relevant risks, or explain why there are none.

Checklist

• I linked the relevant issue or JEP.
• I updated prose, schema, examples, and cases together where applicable.
• I did not imply that conformance proves truth, authority, safety, or operational fitness.
• I signed off my commits under the DCO.