Story: Write the trade journeys

The trade journeys exist as use cases under doc/knowledge/journeys/trades/. Each names the actor, the goal, the operations it reaches and what is missing. A later story builds prototypes that serve them as entity pages under the UX standards.

• The inventory table lists every trade operation with its actor and NATS subject.
• Every legacy Qt trade action has a disposition: kept, changed or dropped.
• Seven journey documents exist under doc/knowledge/journeys/trades/ with coverage tables. They draw no wireframes: a journey is a use case, and the prototype story draws the screens from the UX standards.
• The trade group is on the journeys index and its subjects are checked against the protocol headers.

• A journey is a use case and names no screen. The screens come from the UX standards, and a trade is an entity, so one trade page serves most journeys.
• The journeys draw no wireframes. The prototype story draws the screens.
• The Qt lifecycle event window maintained a lookup. A per-trade event is a trade activity, so the lifecycle journey records an activity.
• An amendment is a booked activity, not a bare write to the trade.
• The reading found gaps that block every screen. They are listed on the hub page and for the owner to plan: no web trading route, a trade list that filters only by id, child tables with no by-trade read, no write of an activity with its versions, and the two digest gaps.

• The prototypes. They are the next story and follow the UX standards, including the older trade-entry prototype under the books group.
• Fixing any gap the journeys list.