Cover proposal 0036 topology observation

[SoundBlaster]

Summary

• What changed? Updated Proposal 0036 observation coverage to use a markdown-wrapping-safe marker.
• Link related issue/task (if any): graph next-move reobservation follow-up.

Motivation

• Why is this change needed? Proposal 0036 was implemented, but its observation marker expected a single wrapped sentence and kept surfacing as a stale reobservation gap.
• What problem, gap, or user need does it address? Lets the graph advance from stale proposal observation cleanup to actual runtime realization backlog work.

Goals

• What should this PR achieve? Mark Proposal 0036 observation coverage as covered and guard it with a focused regression test.
• What is intentionally out of scope? No runtime behavior changes and no canonical spec changes.

Changes

• Replaced the brittle full-sentence Proposal 0036 observation marker with a stable substring present in the proposal markdown.
• Added a regression asserting Proposal 0036 has implemented runtime, covered validation, covered observation, and no next gap.

Validation

• Tests added/updated for changed behavior
• Local checks passed

Commands run:

python3 -m pytest -q tests/test_supervisor.py -k 'proposal_0036 or proposal_0021 or proposal_runtime_index'
git diff --check
make backlog
make next-move
ruff check tests/test_supervisor.py
python3 -m pytest -q tests/test_supervisor.py

Results:

• Focused proposal runtime tests: 4 passed, 605 deselected.
• Backlog summary after both stacked fixes: entry_count = 29, runtime_realization = 20, no reobservation bucket.
• Next move now points to Proposal 0009 / runtime_realization.
• Full supervisor tests: 609 passed in 288.76s.

Risks / Notes

• Backward compatibility impact: none; this changes registry observation metadata only.
• Migration/config changes required: none.
• Known limitations: stacked on Cover proposal 0021 transition observation #387; merge Cover proposal 0021 transition observation #387 first, then rebase/merge this PR.

Checklist

• PR title clearly describes the change
• Scope is focused and minimal
• Documentation updated (or N/A)
• No secrets or sensitive data added

[SoundBlaster]

Reviewed the PR-local diff for Proposal 0036. I did not find a blocking issue here: narrowing the marker to reflective/proposal branch starts moving toward domain-first matches the wrapped markdown text while staying specific to the Proposal 0036 document.

Residual dependency: this PR is stacked on #387, where I left a blocking review comment about the Proposal 0021 marker being too broad. This PR should be fine once the parent stack issue is resolved.