docs(README): lead with the benefit, not the mechanism

[windaddict]

Why

Mastermind feedback: the README is hard for a layman and doesn't market the value. The opening led with an abstract "independent second opinion" tagline, then "reference implementation of CLAR," then a flowchart — mechanism before benefit.

Change

Rework the opening to sell the benefit first:

• Hero: "Impasse gets you better results from your AI — the first time. It brings in a second AI, from a different company, to pressure-test the work and catch the problems your AI missed, so the result you commit to is one you can trust."
• A "Why a second AI?" explainer (blind spots) now follows the promise instead of leading.
• Reframes the reviewer as an "independent advocate for one thing: the quality of the result you ship" — advocate for the outcome, not the operator's position, and not merely against the host AI.
• Moves CLAR, the flowchart, and the pre-release caveats below the pitch.

No mechanism content was lost — the never-edits / verify-reconcile-escalate points remain, just reordered.

Reviewed cross-provider with Impasse (dogfood)

• First pass caught the draft overclaiming — "can't catch its own blind spots," "only the real problems," "blind spots don't match" — softened to accurate claims.
• A marketing-calibrated pass cleared the benefit-first headline as defensible and caught a real accuracy bug: verify/reconcile were grammatically attributed to the reviewer when the host performs them (a core invariant). Fixed.
• Voice lint clean. Reconciliation converged (3/3 resolved, 0 escalated).

Docs-only; no code paths touched.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code