fix(resilience_track): clean up

[rymnc]

No description provided.

[oskarth]

Legal/Comms pass: specific named entities still appear in places that could read as criticism or pointed comparison. I would either generalize these or make the framing explicitly neutral.

Highest priority to genericize:

• src/posts/2026-05-28-resilient-civic-participation.md:162: names Swiss federal e-collecting trials, Voatz, and Estonia's i-voting system in a sentence about signature-forgery scandals, passive-network deanonymisation, ballot alteration, and structural trust assumptions. Suggested generic version: "Prior public audits and e-collecting trials show recurring concerns around deduplication, network privacy, and structural trust assumptions."
• src/posts/2026-05-28-resilient-civic-participation.md:176: names ECI while saying national identifier collection is acceptable where "the retaliation threat is acceptable." Suggested rewrite: "In jurisdictions where central identity collection is legally required and acceptable for the use case, existing deduplication systems may be cheaper to run."
• src/posts/2026-04-14-resilient-plural-identity.md:37: names ZKPassport, Anon Aadhaar, UIDAI, ZK Email, and TLSNotary, then says none answer what happens when the credential source disappears. Suggested rewrite: "These systems produce strong cryptographic proofs, while still relying on the original source or issuer model for some trust assumptions."
• src/posts/2026-04-14-resilient-plural-identity.md:83: names OpenAC and TACEO, then says "without it, identity providers can still watch their users on-chain." Suggested rewrite: "Without this separation, issuer-side metadata can become a correlation surface."

Medium priority, because they are mostly comparative but still name specific projects:

• src/posts/2026-04-14-resilient-plural-identity.md:166-178: World ID, Self, ZKPassport, Human, OpenAC, PLUME, TACEO. Mostly fine as related work, but avoid phrasing that says a named project "does not" support something unless we need that direct comparison.
• src/posts/2026-05-14-resilient-disbursement-rails.md:141-149: Railgun, Privacy Pools, Hinkal, Keycard, GridPlus. Mostly neutral, but "most developed answer" and "with the difference that" are comparative claims. If Legal/Comms wants very low risk, convert to "examples of adjacent work include..." without ranking.
• src/posts/2026-05-28-resilient-civic-participation.md:152-160: MACI, Cicada, CRISP, Helios, Belenios, Open Vote Network. These are technical comparisons. Keep if useful, but soften "trust" / "removes" language to "uses a different trust model" / "does not require that role."
• src/posts/2026-05-28-resilient-civic-participation.md:168: Snapshot, Tally, Aragon, Optimism Citizens' House / Retro Funding. Mostly neutral, but "under a single jurisdiction's roster" may read pointed. Could generalize to "under a defined membership roster."

Low priority / probably OK:

• ICRC Handbook, Sphere Handbook, CALP Network, GDPR Article 25, ECI regulation references are regulatory/standards anchors. I would keep them if framed as mappings, not as criticism.
• Tor, Nym, HOPR, Briar, Meshtastic, Reticulum, Blobscan, EthStorage, EIP references are implementation references, not institutional critique.

Also small cleanup: src/posts/2026-05-28-resilient-civic-participation.md:30 has trailing whitespace in the PR diff.

[rymnc]

@oskarth all addressed