kit: state the surface claim as it was measured, not as it was reasoned

The claim is that the kit cannot be mistaken for an implementation because it
exports no name beginning with kal_, and the claim holds: measured on its
objects, zero of the defined names do.

⚠️ The REASON given was wrong in its particulars. It said a C++ name is mangled
to `_ZN3kal3kit…`, and these objects contain no such symbol: the operations are
inline and are emitted into consumers rather than exported, so what the objects
define are module initialisers like `_ZGIW7openkalW3kitW7channel`.

An argument that rests on how a compiler mangles names is worth checking against
what the compiler emitted. The structural conclusion is unchanged --- C++
mangling cannot produce a bare kal_ symbol --- but a reader following the comment
to verify it would have looked for something that is not there.

Author: speak-agent

README.md

@@ -167,7 +167,9 @@ written once.
 **The contract form is what makes the two unmistakable.** Clause 10 states that
 openkal's contract is a C application binary interface. The kit deliberately is
 not one: it is C++ modules in `namespace kal::kit`, and it exports no name
-beginning with `kal_`. A C++ name is mangled to `_ZN3kal3kit…`, so
+beginning with `kal_`. Measured on its objects: the defined names are C++ mangled
+module initialisers such as `_ZGIW7openkalW3kitW7channel`, and the operations are
+inline and emitted into consumers rather than exported at all. So
 `tools/check-surface.sh --complete` does not read a program that links the kit as
 an implementation which has added names — the rule that checker enforces is about
 the C surface, and the kit has none.

kit/mcpp.toml

@@ -25,11 +25,19 @@ repo        = "https://github.com/mcpplibs/openkal"
 #
 # Clause 10 states that openkal's contract is a C application binary interface.
 # This package deliberately is not one: it is C++ modules in `namespace kal::kit`
-# and it exports no name beginning with `kal_`. A C++ name is mangled to
-# `_ZN3kal3kit…`, so `tools/check-surface.sh --complete` does not read this
-# package as an implementation that has added names --- the rule it enforces is
+# and it exports no name beginning with `kal_`. Measured on its objects --- the
+# defined names are C++ mangled module initialisers such as
+# `_ZGIW7openkalW3kitW7channel`, and the operations themselves are inline and
+# emitted into consumers rather than exported at all. So
+# `tools/check-surface.sh --complete` does not read a program linking this
+# package as an implementation that has added names: the rule it enforces is
 # about the C surface, and this package has none.
 #
+# ⚠️ THE MEASUREMENT MATTERS BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT IS STRUCTURAL. A claim that
+# rests on how a compiler mangles names is worth checking against what the
+# compiler actually emitted, and the first form of this comment named a mangling
+# (`_ZN3kal3kit…`) these objects do not contain.
+#
 # So "is this normative" is answered by the shape of what is exported rather
 # than by a sentence saying it is not. A sentence can be overlooked; a mangled
 # name cannot become a C symbol.