Non-mandatory component architecture views

### What

The component architecture views are only needed in case of further decomposition within a component (on a higher level than detailed design). Need to check if this agrees with the rest of the metamodel/processes. And fix inconsistencies.

### Acceptance Criteria (DoD)

- [ ] metamodel updated
- [x] process description updated

### How

- It is already shown in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/_images/score_traceability_model_cmp_overview_3.drawio.svg - ok
- Covered in the docs-as-code correctly? - dd_sts/dyn mandatory satisfies link to comp_arch_sta has to be made optional - no (comp -> fulfils aou missing), but dd element do not exist any more
- How to link (external) AoU? - fulfils (towards external AoU) could start from component - see changed building blocks picture https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_building_blocks_concept.html#building-blocks-meta-model
- How to link Safety Analysis? - currently mandatory "violates" links go from FMEA to *_arch_dyn and from DFA to *_arch_sta – as there is also no mandatory *_arch_dyn this would mean there could not be a fmea. These needs elements must be seen as “failures”. If there is no component static view (because there are no sub-components) there also is no “failure” based on this possible (also stated in process description). There is still a dfa/fmea document/work product possible stating the above. Need to also amend traceability overview. - ok now, fmea can be linked to sta and dyn arch, missing sta arch means no fmea/dfa on this level needed.
- Impact on https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/issues/418? - resolved