Add self-scoping review UI

docs/self-scoping/README.md

@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ instead of relying on memory or screenshots.
   repo-scoping capability truth.
 - `workflow.md` explains how to run challenger assessments, interpret outcomes,
   and decide whether to update the golden profile or fix the engine.
+- `outcomes/` stores append-only reviewer decisions created from side-by-side
+  comparisons.
 - `../schemas/self-scoping-assessment.schema.json` defines the immutable
   assessment-run artifact shape.
 
@@ -35,6 +37,12 @@ assessment. Compare the challenger to the golden profile and to the negative
 seed. Reviewers should be able to choose whether the old result, new result, or
 neither is better, then store that judgement as a new assessment outcome.
 
+The curator UI exposes this loop at `/ui/self-scoping`. It reads the golden and
+assessment JSON files from this directory, highlights missing, forbidden, and
+misplaced hierarchy entries, and records reviewer preference without mutating
+the compared artifacts. The same page can compare two assessment runs directly
+so reviewers can choose whether the old baseline or new challenger is better.
+
 ## Export Command
 
 Export a completed analysis run as a challenger artifact:

docs/self-scoping/outcomes/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Self-Scoping Review Outcomes
+
+This directory stores append-only review decisions recorded from the
+self-scoping comparison UI. Outcome files bind a reviewer choice to a golden
+profile, an assessment artifact, and the repo-scoping engine identity captured
+in that assessment.
+
+Do not edit historical assessment artifacts to record a preference. Add a new
+outcome record instead.

docs/self-scoping/workflow.md

@@ -56,17 +56,25 @@ are committed.
 
 2. Read the comparison report.
 
-3. If the report says `regression`, inspect forbidden capabilities, misplaced
+3. Open the curator UI at `/ui/self-scoping` to compare the golden profile and
+   assessment artifact side by side.
+
+4. When an earlier baseline assessment exists, use the same page's two-run
+   comparison to judge old output against the new challenger.
+
+5. If the report says `regression`, inspect forbidden capabilities, misplaced
    features, and known regression patterns first.
 
-4. If the report says `needs_review`, inspect missing expected capabilities and
+6. If the report says `needs_review`, inspect missing expected capabilities and
    source evidence before choosing old or new output.
 
-5. If the report says `candidate_improvement`, still confirm that the
+7. If the report says `candidate_improvement`, still confirm that the
    hierarchy, source refs, and native-utility boundaries make sense.
 
-6. Record the decision as an assessment outcome before changing the active
-   baseline.
+8. Record the decision as an assessment outcome before changing the active
+   baseline. The UI writes append-only outcome records under
+   `docs/self-scoping/outcomes/`; it does not rewrite historical assessment or
+   golden-profile artifacts.
 
 ## CI Use