js-rigor: reliability flows through every rule kind; multi_hop value collection fixed

Systemic reliability gap found by the probe sweep: the compiled evaluation
paths never emitted the reliability the engine computes.

- Compiled _evaluateDirect omitted the relation's reliability, and the
  chain/multi_hop rules hardcoded reliability: 1.0 — so check() results
  reported 1.0 for any rule whose decision came through a chain, multi_hop,
  union, intersection, exclusion, or defeasible combination.
- The chain and multi_hop traversals now track per-path reliability (product
  of edge reliabilities) and report the winning path's value; the compiled
  and fallback logical operators (union/intersection/exclusion, direct_list
  fast path, early exits) report the selected child's reliability
  (max/min child or OWA trace index; exclusion multiplies both legs), and
  normal-mode defeasible combines base x requires x defeater reliabilities.
- The checker's logical fast path dropped collectedValues from union/
  intersection/exclusion results; it now passes them through.
- MultiHopRule.valueManager was read off relationManager where the real
  arbiter keeps it on the arbiter — collectValues: true on a multi_hop rule
  with a value-carrying edge crashed the evaluation (error result, silent
  denial). Now resolved at the arbiter level with a relationManager
  fallback for stubs.

Campaign pins: reliability per kind (chain/multi_hop product, union/intersection
selected child, exclusion/defeasible product), and multi_hop value collection
through persistent and partial contexts.

tests/rigor/check-explain-agreement.test.js

@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ describe('check/explain agreement (rigor)', () => {
       rigor.crucible([
         rigor.invariant('check-explain-agree', ({ error, errorMessage }) => !error && !errorMessage)
       ])
-    ).run({ effort: 500, seed: 'explain-agreement' });
+    ).run({ effort: 500, seed: 'explain-agreement' , artifacts: { dir: '', persist: 'never' }});
 
     const inv = report.crucibleVerdict?.invariants?.find(i => i.name === 'check-explain-agree');
     assert.ok(inv);
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ describe('check/explain agreement (rigor)', () => {
       rigor.crucible([
         rigor.invariant('used-facts-consistent', ({ error, errorMessage }) => !error && !errorMessage)
       ])
-    ).run({ effort: 600, seed: 'explain-used-facts' });
+    ).run({ effort: 600, seed: 'explain-used-facts' , artifacts: { dir: '', persist: 'never' }});
 
     const inv = report.crucibleVerdict?.invariants?.find(i => i.name === 'used-facts-consistent');
     assert.ok(inv);
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ describe('check/explain agreement (rigor)', () => {
       rigor.crucible([
         rigor.invariant('remediation-consistent', ({ error, errorMessage }) => !error && !errorMessage)
       ])
-    ).run({ effort: 400, seed: 'explain-remediation' });
+    ).run({ effort: 400, seed: 'explain-remediation' , artifacts: { dir: '', persist: 'never' }});
 
     const inv = report.crucibleVerdict?.invariants?.find(i => i.name === 'remediation-consistent');
     assert.ok(inv);