docs: the UI decode's own evidence images were unreachable -- 11 links repaired

The brief's rule is to commit reference data beside the finding so the
port can be built without a disc. Nothing had ever checked that the docs'
cited artifacts actually exist. doc_link_check.py walks every markdown
file under docs/, resolves each relative link, and reports targets that
are missing -- and separately targets that resolve to a ZERO-BYTE file,
which looks fine in any listing.

  links resolving   1038 -> 1049
  missing targets     16 -> 5
  empty targets        0 -> 0

+11 resolving and -11 missing against 11 edits: the counts pair, which is
the confirmation the pass did what it claimed and touched nothing else.

Two of the sixteen were the evidence for the UI layout decode itself.
structures/ui-rat-layout.md is what the port is built on, and its two
figures -- backing "the tutorial PAUSE menu rebuilds pixel-accurately
from its sprites" and "the same method reproduces the main menu" -- were
written as captures/ui-layout/... from a file in structures/, one
directory too shallow. The headline evidence for the decode could not be
opened from its own document.

Eleven links had the wrong relative depth with the target present. Each
was rewritten only where exactly one candidate path resolved, so nothing
was guessed; the first pass left three alone because equivalent spellings
(captures/../captures/x) failed to collapse, and a second pass normalised
them.

Five remain genuinely absent and are left rather than invented: two point
at MEMORY.md outside the repo, one at a header in the separate
xenia-canary-native tree, and two name documents that were never written
(weapon-datasheet-runtime.md, canary-build-verified-env-confound.md).
None is port-relevant. A missing document is a different problem from a
bad path and is not something a link fix should paper over.

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -585,3 +585,16 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the
   with the capture". Each step is a filter that costs one query and changes the
   number by more than an order of magnitude in total. A raw count is almost never
   the number a consumer needs.
+* **Nothing was checking that the docs' cited evidence exists.** A sweep of every
+  relative link under `docs/` found **16 broken**, and two of them were the
+  figures backing the UI layout decode's headline claim — the port's foundation,
+  unreachable from its own page, because a path in `structures/` was written one
+  directory too shallow. Eleven were wrong relative depth with the target present;
+  five name files that do not exist. Evidence that cannot be opened is not
+  evidence, and a link is exactly the kind of thing no one re-reads.
+  `tools/re-capture/doc_link_check.py` now does it, and also flags targets that
+  resolve to a **zero-byte** file — which looks correct in every listing.
+* **Repair in bulk only when the counts pair.** The fixer rewrote 11 links; the
+  checker went from 1 038 resolving / 16 missing to 1 049 / 5. +11 and −11
+  against 11 edits is the confirmation that the pass did what it said and touched
+  nothing else. A bulk edit without that arithmetic is a hope.