README feedback: three strengths and three concrete improvements

[MN0709]

I read the README, the linked Quick Start and licensing pages, and the relevant public configuration. This is documentation feedback, not a claim that I have tested a deployment.

Three strengths

1. The ERP, CRM, HRM, ATS, project, and time-tracking scope offers a useful path for teams that want connected workflows in one platform.
2. The project provides several ways to try or host it: a demo, desktop apps, Docker Compose, and Kubernetes guidance.
3. The public code, AGPL community edition, and headless APIs make it possible to inspect the implementation and build integrations.

Three improvements I would find valuable

1. Reconcile the demo credentials across the docs. The README lists employee@ever.co / 12345678, while the Quick Start lists employee@ever.co / 123456. Please state the correct credentials for each setup method and keep them in sync.
2. Add a compact feature and release-status matrix. The README lists many capabilities, while the hosted SaaS is explicitly labeled Alpha. Marking which modules are ready, experimental, or specific to an edition would help readers evaluate fit without guessing.
3. Offer a lean, clearly documented production deployment profile for small teams. The main Compose path starts a broad infrastructure stack, although the README describes several services as optional. A minimal supported set, resource estimate, and clear upgrade path would make self-hosting easier to assess.

Thanks for publishing such a broad project and its setup guidance.