docs: audit Desktop and frontend references

[jackeyfaker77]

Summary

• Audit all seven Desktop and frontend documents against the current renderer and @maka/ui implementation.
• Keep the generated file-level inventory as the current authority, and mark four dated audit/fix logs as historical with fresh current-state pointers.
• Synchronize the English and Chinese CSS governance documents with the current layer order, selector scopes, token ownership, and !important exception policy.
• Reconcile the contradictory historical height classification and remove a duplicate audit row.

Refs #3522

Verification

• npm run astryx:surface-inventory — 249 files, 0 blockers, 0 reimplementations, 1 polish item, 248 aligned.
• npm run astryx:surface-inventory:test — 19/19 tests passed.
• node apps/desktop/scripts/check-renderer-architecture.mjs — passed.
• Changed-document ASF header validation — all six headers canonical.
• Relative Markdown link and exact repository path checks — no missing targets.
• git diff --check — passed.
• npm run check:renderer-architecture — 97/98 fixture tests passed; the single failure is Windows path normalization of a POSIX-only /fixture/... fixture test input. The actual renderer architecture checker above passes.
• Full-checkout ASF validation: pre-existing missing headers under untracked .bika-* staging directories are unrelated to this PR.

Checklist

• Tests cover the change and fail without it
• Lint, format, typecheck and the affected suites pass locally

Documentation-only change; Biome ignores Markdown and no product runtime typecheck was required. All relevant generator and architecture checks pass as reported above.

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes — described under Summary above
• No

[Astro-Han]

Reviewed current head 23dde4de5c1efa44b9d479b9639b26b7a1417059 (OPEN, MERGEABLE/BLOCKED awaiting human review). One P2 plus two P3s below, no P0/P1. Docs-only change (6 Markdown files, no code); checks green on this head. This is a high-quality audit — every checkable factual claim was independently verified and all numbers hit exactly.

P2 — the newly written !important enumeration is incomplete and will mislead auditors

The governance doc states as a closed enumeration ("remain in" three files) that narrow compatibility/product overrides live only in reference-shell.css, styles/settings/usage.css, and packages/ui/src/styles.css. A head-wide search finds 10 style files mentioning !important; after classifying (default exceptions, centralized cursor policy, comment-only mentions), two remain that are neither default exceptions nor in the three listed files: shell-layout.css (!important: beats SideNav's inline width) and sidebar.css (!important: StyleX childrenInner paddingInlineStart is unlayered). Graded P2 not P3 because the frontmatter positions this as implementation_status: current / document_status: stable — a living contract for contributors. A closed enumeration in a living contract that omits two items has concrete consequences: auditors following it will misjudge those files, or governance scripts built from the list will miss them. And this PR's entire purpose is doc/implementation alignment — this is the one place it fails its own goal.

P3s (non-blocking)

• The 249 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 248 snapshot numbers are hardcoded in three docs (mitigated: each carries last_verified plus a pointer to re-run the inventory command — but a future change must touch three places with no check catching a miss; prefer keeping numbers only in the generated inventory).
• translation_status: synced is self-declared with no machine enforcement (spot-checked: 9 headings each side, structurally aligned — but nothing flips the field when only one side changes; a limitation of the frontmatter mechanism, not this PR).

What I could not judge

npm run astryx:surface-inventory was not run — numbers were counted from the committed inventory file, so if that generated artifact is itself out of sync with disk, the verification follows it (the coverage gate owning that sync was not validated). Whether the rewritten CSS governance conventions are the ones the team wants is a frontend-owner call — only their stated accuracy was verified, not their desirability.

---

Automated review notice: This comment was posted by an automated review agent operated by Astro-Han. It is not an independent human review and does not replace one.

简体中文

本条结论全部来自 @Opus-Qronos-AstroHan 的审查。我自己没有读这份 diff；我核的是当前 head 有没有漂移。当前 head 是 23dde4d，未关闭。审计质量很高数字全中，一条 P2：新写的封闭枚举漏了两处，会误导按它审计的人，另有两条小的快照与翻译提醒。等人类拍板。

[jackeyfaker77]

Updated in 9b176466c. The P2 is addressed in both language versions. The two non-blocking P3s are retained for the reasons below.

P2 — the !important enumeration is now complete

Both the English and Chinese governance docs now include styles/shell-layout.css and styles/sidebar.css alongside the three previously listed files. The added text explains the SideNav width override in the shell layout and the spacing/border overrides in the sidebar. These remain documented compatibility debt or bounded component fixes, not precedent for new overrides.

P3s (non-blocking)

• Historical snapshot counts: The dated 249 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 248 counts are retained to record the state verified at that time. Each document identifies its historical scope and points to the generated inventory for current coverage. These historical snapshots should not be updated whenever the current inventory changes.
• Translation sync: The English and Chinese governance docs are currently aligned. translation_status: synced remains a manually maintained declaration; this PR does not add automated enforcement. That mechanism can be considered separately.

---

简体中文

已在 9b176466c 中更新。中英文文档均已修复 P2；两条非阻塞 P3 暂时保留，原因如下。

P2 — 已补齐 !important 枚举

中英文治理文档均在原有三个文件之外，补上了 styles/shell-layout.css 和 styles/sidebar.css。新增文字解释了 shell layout 中的 SideNav 宽度覆盖，以及 sidebar 中的间距和边框覆盖。这些仍属于明确记录的兼容债务或有边界的组件修复，不能作为新增覆盖的先例。

P3（非阻塞）

• 历史统计快照： 保留带日期的 249 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 248，用于记录当时核验的状态。每份文档都明确标注历史范围，并指向生成清单获取当前覆盖情况。这些历史快照不应随着当前清单变化而更新。
• 翻译同步： 当前中英文治理文档内容一致。translation_status: synced 仍是人工维护的声明；本次 PR 没有新增自动化检查，该机制可单独考虑。