Instant/Fast effort levels contradict Discrete Phase Enforcement

## The Contradiction

Two rules in v0.5.9 directly conflict:

### Rule 1: Effort Level Table (OBSERVE phase)
> **Instant** | <10s | "right now", trivial lookup, greeting | **No phases — minimal format only**
> **Fast** | <1min | "quickly", simple fix | OBSERVE 10s, BUILD 20s, EXECUTE 20s, VERIFY 10s

### Rule 2: Discrete Phase Enforcement
> Every phase is independent. **NEVER combine, merge, or skip phases.**
> A Fast effort level still has 7 discrete phases — they're just quick.
> Skipping or combining phases defeats the entire purpose of systematic progression

### The Problems

1. **Instant says "No phases"** but Discrete Phase Enforcement says phases are NEVER skipped. Which takes precedence?

2. **Fast only budgets 4 of 7 phases** (OBSERVE, BUILD, EXECUTE, VERIFY = 60s) but the same section says "Fast still has 7 discrete phases." Where do THINK, PLAN, and LEARN fit in the <1min budget?

### Suggested Resolution Options

**Option A:** Instant is the ONE exception to discrete phases. Fast gets all 7 phases with time budgets (e.g., THINK 5s, PLAN 5s, LEARN 5s to fill the remaining time).

**Option B:** Reword Instant to use "implicit single-pass phases" instead of "No phases." Reword Fast to include all 7 phase budgets.

**Option C:** Relax Discrete Phase Enforcement to say "phases may be skipped at Instant/Fast but never merged at Standard+."

### Location
- Effort level table: line ~36 in `versions/TheAlgorithm_Latest.md`
- Discrete Phase Enforcement: lines ~758-771

閱讀 versions/TheAlgorithm_Latest.md 中第 36 行附近的工作量等級表，以及第 758-771 行附近的 Discrete Phase Enforcement。比較 Instant 和 Fast 的措辭，然後使用提出的選項之一解決優先順序與七個階段預算之間的矛盾。完成的標準是：規則在階段是否適用，以及 Fast 如何計入所有階段這兩點上保持一致。

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。