Correct errors found by review; hedge unmarked inferences

A four-agent review audited arithmetic, cross-document consistency,
epistemic honesty and style. It found substantially more than the
manual pass in the previous commit. Errors that changed conclusions,
not decimals:

Arithmetic
- production-timeline: the headline lead times did not reconcile with
  the stage table on the same page. Launch is 22-49 days (was 21-39),
  mature 11.5-22 (was 14-20), repress 6.5-11.5. Including gates,
  launch is 6-17 weeks, not 8-14.
- Consequence: at 17 weeks the launch configuration is at parity with
  EU/US plants, not ahead of them. The page now compares quote to
  quote rather than a stage sum to a quoted lead time, and says so.
- The galvanics turnaround saving is 1.5-5 weeks, not 3-5.
- scale.md Duplex capacity 300-600k/yr did not reproduce from its own
  stated basis; corrected to 175-540k. production-timeline disagreed
  with scale.md on the same fleet; both now agree.
- "300 units is under an hour of pressing" was out by an order of
  magnitude on the semi-auto line: 5-8 hours.
- project-timeline carried two totals for the same quantity. Now
  27-33 months throughout, with the Gantt's two ordering breaks fixed.
- scale.md: 300 kWp covers 28-45% of consumption, not 20-35%; roof PV
  stated as both 150-200 and 247 kWp for the same roof; parking canopy
  dimensions and PV disagreed with the RFQ.
- RFQ: fire tank stated 200 m3 where both its geometry (254 m3) and
  its own mass (250 t) say 250. Drainage now gives total sealed area
  66%, not the 46% paving figure, since that is what attenuation needs.
- Galvanics payback used only the top of the saving range: 1-5 years,
  not 1-4.

Inference marked as inference
- The 22,000 THB stamper figure is an invoice RESIDUAL. It carries
  lacquer cutting, test pressings, setup and margin, so it is an upper
  bound on the stamper component, not a measurement. Everything derived
  from it now says so, and a line-itemised invoice is the top question.
- The saving was also benchmarked against the wrong supplier: CNX buys
  from Stamper Discs, not a Thai reseller. Stated as 175-665 USD until
  that quote exists.
- The stamper-bottleneck hypothesis now names its alternatives. Jacket
  print runs would produce the same symptom and would constrain CNX
  equally, which would remove the competitive read entirely.
- Competitor capacity relabelled as nameplate times an assumed OEE,
  with the assumed shift pattern stated; all rows on one 300-day basis.
- The fixed/variable decomposition keeps the shape and drops the point
  estimates: the solve point inside the flat 1000-3000 tier is
  arbitrary and moves the fixed component by nearly half.
- "Nobody in Thailand plates" reduced to "we have found no evidence",
  with a desk check named as the action.
- Cut the USD 450-700k valuation of a competitor's presses entirely.
  It extrapolated a semi-auto quote onto a different machine, ignored
  the used market, and supported no decision.
- The collaboration payback divided capex by revenue where the same
  page uses contribution elsewhere: 5-10 years, not 1-3.

Missing caveats added
- No financing is committed or modelled anywhere in this repo;
  project-timeline previously asserted money was not a constraint.
- Leasing cannot pull the launch forward on its own, since the press
  chain governs and construction has float against it.
- The whole competitive analysis is one buyer, one plant, one
  afternoon, and the primary evidence is not archived in the repo.
- ResurRec is a competitor and may decline to buy from a new entrant.

docs/finance/phase1-construction-rfq.md

@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ PIR.
 | **Paving total** | **4,387 m²** — see note below |
 | Car/scooter parking | Roofed canopies: **27.7 × 7.0 m (195 m², 10 cars)** + **13.7 × 5.5 m (76 m², 30 scooters)**, steel canopy carrying **~40 kWp** PV |
 | Guard house | **12 m² (4 × 3 m)**, insulated/AC'd, with toilet; sited at the gate, north-west side |
-| Tank foundations | Ring foundation for a **9 m dia × 4 m** fire water tank (~200 m³, ~250 t full) sited in the **north-west corner of the plot**, with the **fire pump house adjacent to it**; plus a **5 m dia × 3 m** raw water tank. Tanks themselves are vendor-supplied bolted panels — foundations only |
+| Tank foundations | Ring foundation for a **9 m dia × 4 m** fire water tank (**~250 m³, ~250 t full** — the geometry gives 254 m³ gross; if 200 m³ usable with freeboard is intended, the foundation still carries the full 250 t) sited in the **north-west corner of the plot**, with the **fire pump house adjacent to it**; plus a **5 m dia × 3 m** raw water tank. Tanks themselves are vendor-supplied bolted panels — foundations only |
 | Fire main | Ring main runs from the north-west corner to the buildings — quote the **length**, not just "a ring main" |
 | Drainage & sanitation | Site stormwater drainage, domestic septic/treatment for ~25 staff — **see note below** |
 
@@ -142,8 +142,12 @@ things follow:
   which will be dug up again for Phase 2 piling and foundations. **Option to
   price:** compacted sub-base only now, surfaced after Phase 2 completes.
 
-**On drainage.** 4,387 m² of pavement seals about **46 % of the 9,567 m²
-plot**. Runoff increases materially over the agricultural baseline, and
+**On drainage.** 4,387 m² of pavement is about 46 % of the 9,567 m² plot,
+but the figure that matters for attenuation is the **total sealed area**:
+adding the main building (1,500 m²), utility yard (178 m²), guard house
+(12 m²) and parking canopies (271 m²) gives **6,348 m², or 66 % of the
+plot**. Quote the contractor that number, not the paving one.
+Runoff increases materially over the agricultural baseline, and
 stormwater attenuation — quite possibly a detention pond — may be required
 for the factory permit. Ask the contractor to state what they have assumed.