feat(pipeline): report when a re-ingest disagrees with the page on disk (#104)

The asymmetry that makes unattended ingest safe (#103) also discarded a
real signal. When a fresh extraction produced a different version of a
section already on disk, the on-disk version won and the model's version
went in the bin without a word — so "the source is unchanged" and "the
source changed its mind and we ignored it" were indistinguishable.

wiki.MergeReport now returns the headings where the incoming version
disagreed and lost, and the ingest run reports them as warnings, which
AppendLog already writes into log.md.

This is the simplified answer to contradiction flagging at ingest. The
issue proposed calling brain-gardener's Judge from the ingest path, which
needs either a shared Go module across two repos or an HTTP service that
does not exist — and puts an LLM call on the write path, where a timeout
must neither fail the ingest nor silently mark nothing as contested.

None of that is necessary to get the signal. The merge already computes
the disagreement; it was throwing it away. Surfacing it costs nothing,
needs no model, no cue-word matcher, no cross-repo dependency, and is
deterministic.

Deliberately textual disagreement, not semantic contradiction. Deciding
whether a disagreement is a genuine contradiction stays with the
Judge-gated enrich pass that already runs hourly and is approval-gated by
design (brain-gardener#175). Detection here, adjudication there.

Merge is kept as a thin wrapper over MergeReport so existing callers are
untouched.

Refs #104, #103, brain-gardener#175, brain#21.

README.md

@@ -104,6 +104,24 @@ Two fields are **generator-owned** and do get refreshed on a revise:
 `last_updated` and `source_hash`. Everything else on disk wins. The boundary is
 an explicit allowlist, so a field nobody has thought about stays human-owned.
 
+### Disagreement is reported, not resolved
+
+When the fresh extraction produces a *different version* of a section that
+already exists, the on-disk version still wins — but the run now says so:
+
+```
+wiki/sources/shape-up.md: source now disagrees on section "Summary" — on-disk version kept
+```
+
+That line lands in `log.md` with the rest of the run's warnings. Without it, "the
+source is unchanged" and "the source changed its mind and we ignored it" look
+identical from the outside.
+
+This is deliberately **textual** disagreement, not semantic contradiction: cheap,
+deterministic, no model on the write path. Deciding whether a disagreement is a
+genuine contradiction stays with the Judge-gated `brain-enrich` pass, which is
+approval-gated by design. Detection here, adjudication there.
+
 ## Re-ingesting an unchanged source is skipped
 
 Ingest stores `source_hash` — sha256 of the ingested **body**, frontmatter