data(filecoin): add verified storage action links

[aiirvizionz]

Summary

Adds verified action buttons to 9 existing Filecoin storage offers. Values are copied from the canonical offer reference rows after opening every unique destination URL.

Type of change

• Add data rows
• Update data rows
• Remove data rows
• Schema change
• Documentation/metadata only

Scope

• Networks affected: Filecoin
• Categories affected: storages
• Improved non-null cells: 9
• Overlap audit: excluded Lighthouse and Filecoin Onchain Cloud rows covered by data(filecoin): add Lighthouse, FOC, and Pay actionButtons #2932. The earlier Algorand SDK portion was removed after finding exact overlap with Populate canonical Algorand and Filecoin links #2546. Storacha rows remain excluded because their links redirect to a different domain and need separate review.

Links

• No schema change / DBIP required.

Validation checklist

• I followed the Style Guide and Column Definitions. I'm aware of what is !provider syntax, and that entities in /networks sub-folders inherit records from /providers.
• I personally opened and verified every new link I'm adding. I can confirm that all links I'm adding are valid.
• I confirmed the adjusted inherited offers and values are correct according to my best understanding.
• This PR is not a blind AI-generated submission.

Validation run locally: validate_csv.py, csv_to_json.py, and validate.py all passed. AI-assisted for candidate comparison; every selected URL and final diff was manually reviewed.

Optional

• Rewards address: 0x769f7a238c8874148bcA1aE0736295630C28faF7

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[USS-Supervisor]

Verdict: COMMENT
Risk: LOW
Summary: I reviewed the visible CSV diff and did not find a data-integrity issue in the changed rows, but I cannot approve this cycle because the reviewer-triggered current-cycle link-check did not produce a verifiable completed result within the run window.
Findings: No blocking data finding from the visible diff. Approval is withheld because the current-cycle link-check outcome was indeterminate after the check-links trigger; required validation was already passing, and the pre-cycle link-check state was SKIPPED.
Confidence: MEDIUM

[USS-Supervisor]

Hi @aiirvizionz - this PR is stale, and review should wait until required CI passes. Current blocker: CI not passing: link-check=COMPLETED/SKIPPED. Could you please fix CI and update the PR when it is ready?

[aiirvizionz]

I traced the shared CI blocker on PRs #2996 through #3003. The Link Check (analysis) workflow only runs when the PR has the check-links label (pull_request types include labeled, and the job condition checks that label). All eight PRs currently have JSON validation passing, but link-check is completed/skipped because the label is absent.

I attempted to add check-links, but the contributor account does not have repository label permission (GitHub returns 403). Could a maintainer please apply check-links to #2996, #2997, #2998, #2999, #3000, #3001, #3002, and #3003? Adding the label should trigger the required link-check without any code-only workaround.

[USS-Supervisor]

Hi @eugene17kotov - friendly follow-up: this PR is still stale, required CI is passing, and it looks blocked on reviewer action. Could you please review when you have a chance?

[aiirvizionz]

@USS-Supervisor the PR head changed after the previous check-links event, so the current head only has a skipped link-check run. Could you please reapply the check-links label to validate this exact head? No data change is needed.

[github-actions]

Summary

Status	Count
🔍 Total	3
🔗 Unique	3
✅ Successful	3
⏳ Timeouts	0
🔀 Redirected	1
👻 Excluded	0
❓ Unknown	0
🚫 Errors	0
⛔ Unsupported	0

Full Github Actions output

[USS-Supervisor]

Verdict: APPROVE
Risk: LOW
Summary: Required validation is passing, the current-cycle link-check completed successfully with zero reported errors/timeouts/unsupported links, and the changed CSV data keeps valid widths with resolving references.
Findings: None.
Confidence: HIGH

[USS-Supervisor]

@eugene17kotov following up on this stale PR. Required CI is passing and I do not see a blocking review, so it still looks ready for reviewer action when you have a chance.