fix(kb): close all six Zeugnis discrepancies on the user's rulings

D1/D2 - Bosch title and promotion: CONFIRMED by the user. The promotion and its
timing are correct and came from a re-grading (Neueinstufung). The Zeugnis does
not contradict it - it names DEPARTMENTS ("Ingenieur" in Fertigungstechnologie
1/2/3) rather than job titles. Separately corrected a false provenance note that
claimed official_title was "the formal combined string on the Zeugnis"; it never
came from that document, it comes from the user and LinkedIn.

D3 - part-time from 2021-09: NOT recorded, by the user's decision. Noted for
completeness that tenure wording such as "over ten years" measures elapsed time
and is unaffected; it would only matter if a document claimed FTE years, and
none does.

D4 - French and Italian: the Swisscom Zwischenzeugnis says he uses both
professionally on a regular basis. The user reviewed the sentence and confirmed
it is an ERROR IN THE DOCUMENT. DE/EN only stands. Recorded in
identity.language_note so nobody rediscovers the line and acts on it, with the
practical warning that a reader of that Zeugnis may take it at face value.

D5 - the RUAG MSSQL rule-out: the DECISION stands (user does not want it
revisited), the REASONING is corrected. Two of its four premises were wrong:
MSSQL is not 0 (Fraunhofer SCEDAS ran on Microsoft SQL Server), and "his stack
is AWS cloud-native" was too narrow - the Swisscom Zeugnis documents component
ownership for ETL into the Teradata DWH. Talend and SAP S/4HANA remain genuinely
0, and the required line reads "Aufbau UND Betrieb" while he has documented
Betrieb only - so the skip is still defensible, it was just better than its
written justification. Both RUAG decision rows now carry the correction and a
standing rule for future DWH postings.

D6 - Vizrt end date: 2018-05 stands by the user's decision.

And the follow-through that matters: the data-warehouse, MSSQL and mentoring
evidence is now IN THE BUNDLES, not only in claims.json. BS-6 showed last week
that evidence which reaches no bundle cannot be selected - this is the same
failure mode, caught the same week. The DWH entry carries its scope limit
explicitly: documented Betrieb, not Aufbau.

Validator PASS, 37/37 tests.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qej5SBvhcbGXHwLqNWiskM

resume_builder/bundles/bundle_data_engineer.md

@@ -132,3 +132,22 @@ BS-6 was absent from every bundle although it has been canonical since 2026-08-2
 - **Use it when** the JD names Linux, Ansible, configuration management, IaC or platform operations — exactly the DevOps/SRE-flavoured reqs where this profile reads thin without it.
 - **Currency limit, always state it:** employer-side Linux/Ansible ended Dec 2022; `PP-3` carries the current half and is a **personal** self-hosted Debian server. Never present PP-3 as employer work or as physical-datacenter evidence.
 - **GitOps remains forbidden:** playbooks lived in Git but ran push-based from Jenkins/GitLab with no reconciliation agent. The substance is writable as “version-controlled infrastructure automation with Ansible from Git, executed through Jenkins/GitLab pipelines”.
+
+## Data-warehouse and mentoring evidence (added 2026-09-11 from the Arbeitszeugnisse)
+
+Both were documented all along and reached no bundle, so the selection paths could not see them.
+Same failure mode as BS-6 (Linux/Ansible), found the same week.
+
+- **Data warehouse (SW-2).** The Swisscom Zwischenzeugnis documents *Komponentenverantwortung* for
+  the ETL pipelines that load business-critical Fulfillment data from Oracle into the **Teradata
+  Data Warehouse (DWH)**. Use this whenever a JD names data warehousing — it was previously
+  screened as absent, which cost a correct answer on at least one posting.
+  **Scope limit:** this is documented **Betrieb** (operation) of a DWH, not **Aufbau**
+  (construction). A required line saying *"Aufbau und Betrieb von Data-Warehouse-Lösungen"* is only
+  half met — say which half.
+- **Microsoft SQL Server (FC-1).** Fraunhofer's SCEDAS ran on MSSQL with C# and Entity Framework.
+  Historical and single-project; do not present it as data-platform depth.
+- **Mentoring (BS-7).** *"Fachliche Betreuung von Studierenden, auch im Rahmen von
+  Abschlussarbeiten"* — documented technical supervision, including thesis supervision. Use it when
+  a JD asks about developing other engineers (SBB asked explicitly and the answer had to fall back
+  on team roles). **Technical supervision, NOT people management.**

resume_builder/bundles/bundle_data_platform.md

@@ -141,3 +141,22 @@ Kubernetes, Docker, AWS (S3 · Glue · Athena · Redshift · CloudFormation), Ka
 - Claiming SRE/pure DevOps title (you were a data engineer with platform ownership)
 - Overstating Terraform/Helm experience (not confirmed — do not claim)
 - Mentioning SCEDAS, maritime research, BDD, or RPA
+
+## Data-warehouse and mentoring evidence (added 2026-09-11 from the Arbeitszeugnisse)
+
+Both were documented all along and reached no bundle, so the selection paths could not see them.
+Same failure mode as BS-6 (Linux/Ansible), found the same week.
+
+- **Data warehouse (SW-2).** The Swisscom Zwischenzeugnis documents *Komponentenverantwortung* for
+  the ETL pipelines that load business-critical Fulfillment data from Oracle into the **Teradata
+  Data Warehouse (DWH)**. Use this whenever a JD names data warehousing — it was previously
+  screened as absent, which cost a correct answer on at least one posting.
+  **Scope limit:** this is documented **Betrieb** (operation) of a DWH, not **Aufbau**
+  (construction). A required line saying *"Aufbau und Betrieb von Data-Warehouse-Lösungen"* is only
+  half met — say which half.
+- **Microsoft SQL Server (FC-1).** Fraunhofer's SCEDAS ran on MSSQL with C# and Entity Framework.
+  Historical and single-project; do not present it as data-platform depth.
+- **Mentoring (BS-7).** *"Fachliche Betreuung von Studierenden, auch im Rahmen von
+  Abschlussarbeiten"* — documented technical supervision, including thesis supervision. Use it when
+  a JD asks about developing other engineers (SBB asked explicitly and the answer had to fall back
+  on team roles). **Technical supervision, NOT people management.**