Release 0.4.0: auto-set RFC owner = proposer

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

SPEC.md

@@ -1120,12 +1120,20 @@ The modal collects four fields:
   type their own.
 
 No proposer name or email — the logged-in identity is canonical and
-need not be retyped. No proposed-owner or working-group fields —
-ownership flows through the post-merge claim flow (§13.1), and
+need not be retyped. No proposer-owner field either: the proposer is
+implicitly the first owner of their own RFC, set automatically at
+submit-time from the session user (see §9.2); the post-merge claim
+flow (§13.1) remains for *other* contributors to add themselves as
+owners on an RFC they didn't propose. No working-group field —
 arbiters are admin work, not the proposer's call. AI's drafting role
 is intentionally narrow: tag suggestions only. The proposer is
 making a specific claim about a specific word, and having AI propose
-the claim for them would undercut the gesture.
+the claim for them would undercut the gesture. (§19.3 rule-2
+correction: 0.4.0 narrowed this paragraph; the prior version asserted
+"no proposed-owner field" without qualification, but running code
+revealed that forcing a separate claim-flow gesture for the
+proposer's own RFC was UX friction with no benefit — the proposer
+already self-identified by proposing.)
 
 Primary action: **"Open proposal PR"** — naming the actual Git
 artifact produced, consistent with §10.1's *Open PR* and §13's
@@ -1141,7 +1149,13 @@ is populated from the modal and session:
 - `state: super-draft`, `id: null`, `repo: null`,
   `graduated_at: null`, `graduated_by: null` — fixed at creation.
 - `proposed_by: <session email>`, `proposed_at: <today>` — auto.
-- `owners: []` — empty; the claim flow (§13.1) fills this.
+- `owners: [<proposer.gitea_login>]` — the proposer is the first
+  owner at propose time, set automatically from the session user.
+  The §13.1 claim flow remains available for *additional* owners on
+  the same entry. (§19.3 rule-2 correction: 0.4.0 changed this from
+  `owners: []`; the prior shape required a separate claim-flow
+  gesture for the proposer's own RFC, which running code surfaced
+  as needless UX friction.)
 - `arbiters: []` — empty; arbiters are admin work, not the
   proposer's call.
 
@@ -1718,11 +1732,20 @@ PR do not block graduation; they remain on the meta repo subject to
 
 ### 13.1 Claim ownership (prerequisite)
 
-If a super-draft has no owner, any signed-in contributor can click
-"Claim ownership," which opens a PR against the meta repo adding their
-username to the `owners:` field of the entry. Owners and admins can
-merge. (A self-merge window for un-acted claims is not enabled in v1;
-configurable later if needed.) Multiple claims simply append.
+The proposer is already the first owner of any super-draft they
+proposed (per §9.2; auto-set at propose time). The claim flow exists
+for *additional* contributors to become owners on an existing super-
+draft — typically a draft whose proposer has stepped away, or a draft
+graduating with a working group. Any signed-in contributor can click
+"Claim ownership," which opens a PR against the meta repo adding
+their username to the `owners:` field of the entry. Owners and admins
+can merge. (A self-merge window for un-acted claims is not enabled in
+v1; configurable later if needed.) Multiple claims simply append.
+(§19.3 rule-2 correction: 0.4.0 narrowed this section's framing; the
+prior version implied owners always started empty and the claim flow
+was a hard prerequisite to graduation, but with the proposer now
+auto-set as first owner, the claim flow is a graduation-time
+broadening rather than a precondition for the proposer's own RFC.)
 
 ### 13.2 The Graduate dialog