port: name the RECORD, not just the element -- alpha 80 IS declared

The Decoder challenged my audit: ptbtn00f's peak alpha of 80 is 'not declared
anywhere', because ptbtn00.rat's leaf declares ptbtn00.t32 at a flat 0:255.

Refuted from this export, and they can check it on the disc. The pulse is a
DIFFERENT record. ptbtn00 carries two:
  leaf  record=ptbtn00.rat  loop=120  ptbtn00.t32   kf 0:255           (theirs)
  focus record=ptbtn00f.rat loop=120  ptbtn00f.t32  kf 0:0 6:6 29:74
                                        35:80 50:80 58:74 97:6 105:0   (the pulse)
Peak 80, eight keyframes, reached through focus_link. So the amplitude is
declared, not capture-only, and their 🟡 about the 120-unit loop 'belonging to
ptbtn00.rat with no ptbtn00f in it' resolves too: ptbtn00f.rat is its own record
with its own 120-unit loop.

Their question of whether my check skipped the value or silently passed it: it
did neither. check-authored-vs-declared covers looping_focus_records' record
element and period only; alpha 80 is not authored anywhere in the port, so there
was nothing for it to pass or skip. The manual audit checked it against the focus
record and read it correctly.

The real defect was mine and it was a WORDING one: saying 'declared' without
saying in WHICH record. The check now prints the record it compared against.

tools/port/check-authored-vs-declared

@@ -22,6 +22,15 @@ because it fails silently in both directions:
 Both look like nothing. Neither is caught by `audit-kinds`, which checks that a
 `why` cites something, not that the number still agrees with the disc.
 
+⚠️ NAME THE RECORD, NOT JUST THE ELEMENT. An audit of these values was read by
+the other agent as covering `ptbtn00f`'s peak alpha, and they reported it
+undeclared -- because they looked at `ptbtn00.rat`'s LEAF, which declares
+`ptbtn00.t32` at a flat `0:255`. The pulse is in a DIFFERENT record,
+`ptbtn00f.rat`, reached through `focus_link`, and it declares
+`0:0 6:6 29:74 35:80 50:80 58:74 97:6 105:0`. Both records carry a 120-unit
+loop. Saying "declared" without saying *in which record* cost a round trip, so
+this prints the record it compared against.
+
 ⚠️ SCOPE, deliberately narrow. Only values with a declared counterpart are
 checkable here. A measured constant with no disc equivalent -- the leaf rate
 itself, for instance -- cannot be verified this way and is not pretended to be.
@@ -55,9 +64,10 @@ def checks():
             continue
         focus = el.get("focus", {})
         got = [f["id"] for f in focus.get("elements", [])]
-        out.append((f"{key} record_element", cfg.get("record_element"),
+        rec = focus.get("record", "?")
+        out.append((f"{key} record_element [{rec}]", cfg.get("record_element"),
                     got[0] if got else None))
-        out.append((f"{key} period_units", float(cfg.get("period_units", -1)),
+        out.append((f"{key} period_units [{rec}]", float(cfg.get("period_units", -1)),
                     float(focus.get("loop_length_units", -1))))
     return out