rfc_lint: check RFC-0007 §2.2 back-links; fix CI-GATES roster row; decide rule-7 consolidations and back-link drift #263

Context

PR #259 (#249) promoted RFC-0049 … RFC-0064 to Accepted and added the RFC-0007 §2.2 back-links by hand (35 Updated-by: lines, 51 section pointers). It also added an rfc_lint rule for CHANGELOG citations. Nothing in CI checks the back-links themselves, and the work surfaced older drift.

1. rfc_lint does not check §2.2 back-links

scripts/rfc_lint.py has no occurrence of Updated-by or 갱신됨 (its l.14 says Updates targets are not checked). A future Updates RFC that reaches Accepted without its back-links passes CI. Proposal: for every Accepted RFC with - Updates:, require Updated-by: RFC-<updater> in each target RFC (chain names in parentheses are predecessors, not targets).

2. docs/CI-GATES.md roster row is stale

The deterministic-gate row for rfc_lint.py (l.17) still reads "§2.1·§3·§7(상태·번호·템플릿 섹션)"; the merged linter also fails CI when CHANGELOG.md cites a non-Accepted or missing RFC.

3. §2.2 rule-7 consolidation candidates

These sections now need more than two documents to read (rule 7 says to consolidate via Supersedes instead of stacking more Updates):

• RFC-0001 §노드 카탈로그/Guard
• RFC-0002 §Full grammar, §Block structure
• RFC-0003 §Execution Model
• RFC-0012 §G12.2, §G12.5
• RFC-0014 §2.1 when 모드, §2.4 스킵 레코드
• RFC-0015 §1 Full Grammar, §3 정적 거부
• RFC-0016 §3 피연산자의 차원 규칙, §5 mode A/B 등가
• RFC-0025 §5 실행 스코프
• RFC-0028 §6 Mode B
• RFC-0038 §3 등가 비교의 타입 규칙

4. Pre-existing back-link drift (left as found)

• RFC-0002 has no Updated-by: RFC-0015, although RFC-0015 declares Updates: RFC-0002 §Full grammar.
• RFC-0001 l.416, RFC-0025 l.101/158/199 and RFC-0038 l.129/360 carry > 갱신됨: RFC-0048 pointers for RFC-0048, which is still Draft.
• New pointer blocks that omit earlier updaters: RFC-0001 §노드 카탈로그 (RFC-0028); RFC-0002 §Full grammar (RFC-0012); RFC-0012 §G12.5 (0025, 0030); RFC-0014 §2.1 and §2.4 (0027, 0028); RFC-0015 §1 (0025, 0028); RFC-0016 §3 (0038); RFC-0003 §Execution Model and RFC-0012 §G12.2 have Updated-by: entries but no pointer block.
• Predecessor names missing on Updates lines not triggered by this promotion: 0049 does not name RFC-0012 on RFC-0002 §Full grammar; 0056 and 0062 do not name RFC-0041 on RFC-0003 §Execution Model; 0052 §2 and 0059 build on Draft RFC-0048 §4.

Done when

• Item 1 implemented with tests (known-good and known-bad controls); item 2 updated; items 3–4 each decided (consolidate, fix, or record why not) through the RFC process (lnpl-dev-rfc).