Compare our four Boxes against seanrobertwright/archon-pocock-workflow

Question

github.com/seanrobertwright/archon-pocock-workflow also ports Matt Pocock's skills into Archon
workflows. It is generic where ours is tailored to Unic. Read it against our four Boxes
(unic-dlc-build, -qa, -pr-review, -explore) and report what to learn.

Two directions, both useful. What it does that ours lacks — a node shape, a gate, a way of reading a
Method. And what ours builds that it gets for free — every such case is a candidate for deletion,
which matters more here than the first direction.

Read the repository as the primary source. Do not infer its design from its README.

Acceptance criteria

• Its workflow set is mapped against our four Boxes, naming what has no counterpart on either
  side.
• Anything ours over-builds is listed with the file and node, and a verdict on whether it can go.
• Anything worth adopting is listed with the reason it beats what we have.
• The findings are captured as a Markdown file in the repo, per the /research Method.

Read seanrobertwright/archon-pocock-workflow as the primary source, then compare its workflow set with unic-dlc-build, unic-dlc-qa, unic-dlc-pr-review, and unic-dlc-explore. Map unmatched workflow shapes and gates, identify over-built files and nodes with deletion verdicts, and capture the findings in a repository Markdown file following the /research Method.