`sparse-decoration` motive incorrectly lists `if > @` as acceptable, conflicts with lint and pack rules

What happens

The motive of sparse-decoration shows this as a correct program:

[] > decorates-app
  if > @
    true
    5
    five

The lint flags it anyway. Running new LtByXsl("misc/sparse-decoration").defects(...) on the example as parsed by EoSyntax (lints de102d68, eo-parser 0.63.0):

defects=1: Sparse decoration is prohibited (line 1)

The motive's other two correct examples ([free] > decorates-with-free-args and the unit test) produce no defect, as documented.

Why it is the motive that is wrong

The lint's own packs say an application decorated through @ is sparse. sparse-application.yaml expects a warning for

[] > test
  if. > @
    a
    42
    88

and sparse-formation-with-if.yaml does the same. The XSL checks exactly that: an abstract object with a single child named φ that isn't void and has no ^ reference (misc/sparse-decoration.xsl). Nothing in it looks at whether @ is applied to arguments. So the example in motives/misc/sparse-decoration.md teaches the opposite of what the rule enforces, and a user who reads the motive after getting the warning finds their code listed as correct.

How to fix

Replace the first correct example in sparse-decoration.md with a program that really isn't sparse, for example one with a second attribute or a void parameter, like the existing [free] > decorates-with-free-args. Optionally, add a sentence that decorating through an application with arguments is still sparse, matching sparse-application.yaml.

Read motives/misc/sparse-decoration.md and compare its first correct example with misc/sparse-decoration.xsl, sparse-application.yaml, and sparse-formation-with-if.yaml. Replace the misleading example with one that is not sparse, and optionally clarify that application decoration with arguments remains sparse; done means the motive no longer contradicts the lint rule.