#1071 and #1107 are merged into santos/dev2 by ancestry, and their surface work is not in the tree

Read the merge ancestry and compare the disputed hunks in the twelve listed files, starting with internal/tui3/homepanel_needs.go and its two tests. Get the product decision on whether a needs row names the door before reconciling any files. Done means reviewed commits document each intent decision and the tagged terminal suite passes against the stated zero-failure baseline, alongside the words and touched-packages checks.

Bringing dev into santos/dev2 merges #1071 and #1107 by ancestry while
deliberately NOT bringing their surface work into the tree. This issue is the
record of what was left out, and the work to bring it across properly.

READ THE ANCESTRY CAREFULLY. After that merge, git log will show both commits
reachable from santos/dev2. Their changes to the twelve files below are not in
it. Ancestry and content disagree on purpose, and this issue exists so that
disagreement is written down somewhere a person will find it.

Why they were left out

The merge brought six commits across a three day gap. Fifty six files
conflicted. Most of them were the same work arriving twice by two routes, and
those were settled by proof rather than by preference: for each file, whether
dev's exact blob is a state santos/dev2 already passed through. Twenty six
answered yes.

The twelve below did not. They are the ones #1071 and #1107 touch, and on each
of them the two sides are two people's intent three days apart rather than an
old copy and a new one. Resolving them either way is a behaviour change to the
surface, and a behaviour change inside a fifty six file merge is one nobody
reads as a behaviour change.

THE GATE CANNOT SEE THESE. The untagged words check asserts a needle exists
somewhere in internal/tui3. It cannot see whether the screen spells two of
them adjacently, or files a row under a heading, or draws a key on a row. Only
the tagged terminal suite notices that kind of rot, and it is in no workflow
(#1361). So the usual answer, resolve it and let the gate decide, is not
available here.

The files

internal/tui3/homepanel_needs.go, internal/tui3/pages.go,
internal/tui3/palette.go, internal/tui3/tasksplace.go,
internal/tui3/lanes_test.go, internal/tui3/palette_test.go,
internal/e2e/tui_e2e_test.go, internal/e2e/tuiwords_test.go,
internal/manual/chat/commands.md, internal/manual/chat/how-tasks-run.md,
internal/manual/chat/models-and-cost.md, internal/manual/chat/tasks.md.

Twenty six conflicting hunks across them.

The decision that has to be made by a person

DOES A NEEDS ROW NAME THE DOOR IT TAKES. The two sides are not a mistake and a
fix. They are two intents, and each left a comment explaining itself.

santos/dev2 keeps the branch and REFINES it. An item stopped on a permission
also gets the standing word, because nobody wrote that line, the conversation
holds nothing to answer, and what a person can do about it lives on the item's
own page:

cell.subRight = needsOpenWord
if standing.IsPermissionLine(row.item.Item.NeedsPerson) ||
    strings.TrimSpace(row.item.Item.Origin.Transcript) == "" {
    cell.subRight = needsStandingWord
}

#1071 DELETES the branch, and says the row names neither door, pointing at
needsAnswersCap for the rule. needsOpenWord and needsStandingWord do not
exist anywhere on dev; on santos/dev2 they are used by
homepanel_needs.go and two tests.

Two more of the same shape, given as sizes because the content is long:
pages.go's first conflict is nine lines at the merge base, grown to
thirty three on santos/dev2 and deleted outright by #1071. palette.go's
seventh is a hundred and thirty at the base, eighty three on santos/dev2,
fourteen on dev.

What bringing them across should look like

One reviewed change per commit rather than one lump, each saying which intent
won on every disputed line and why.

ACCEPTANCE IS THE TAGGED SUITE, because nothing else can see this work. A run
against a real model, with the subtest list, diffed against the last known
zero failure baseline. A green build, a green words check and a green touched
packages run prove nothing here and should not be offered as if they did.

The needs row question above is a product decision with an author and wants an
answer before the reconciliation starts, not during it.