fix: fail closed on incomplete weekly image and CVE surveys

.claude/skills/recipe-report/SKILL.md

@@ -30,7 +30,9 @@ keeps every weekly edition looking the same regardless of which model writes the
 2. **Survey.** `python3 /srv/cc-ci/cc-ci-plan/recipe-report.py survey <DATE> > /tmp/survey.json`. This
    gives you: the raw `/upgrade-all` summary; for every recipe mirror its open PRs + the `cc-ci/testme`
    verdict; and each recipe's **per-recipe upgrade notes** (`upgrade_notes_md` — the breaking-change /
-   **CVE / security** analysis the upgrade did). Read it all.
+   **CVE / security** analysis the upgrade did). Read it all. Also run
+   `python3 /srv/cc-ci/cc-ci-plan/audit-sources.py --security-sources`; a recipe with no verified
+   security source or a failed source must be called out, not presented as a clean CVE scan.
 
 3. **Review & classify.** The page order is: **short lead → the full wire table (priority-sorted) →
    Addendum → Security Bulletin → per-recipe "What changed".** Same newspaper style; this order.
@@ -46,9 +48,13 @@ keeps every weekly edition looking the same regardless of which model writes the
        lists **failed sources**, the count is **not** authoritative: render the cve cell as `?`
        (unknown), never `none` — a blank that reads as "clean" is exactly how two CVSS-9.8 gitea
        RCEs were reported as "none" on 2026-08-07.
-     - **`?` must stay RARE — it means "we tried and could not tell", not "we didn't look".** Use it
-       ONLY when a scan ran and reported genuinely failed sources, **or when the scan block says
-       COUNT UNKNOWN**. In that case the scan's `0` means *not determined*: publish `?` and say so in
+     - The table's **CVEs fixed** column counts known CVEs addressed by the available recipe upgrade.
+       A zero for an up-to-date recipe means there is no upgrade window to credit; it does not
+       certify that the running images are free of vulnerabilities. If an upgrade exists but its
+       advisory scan is absent, a source failed, or an image window was unmatched, use `?`.
+     - **`?` means the count is not verified.** Use it when an upgrade has no scan, a source failed,
+       an image window was unmatched, or the scan block says COUNT UNKNOWN. In that case publish
+       `?` and say why in
        the notes; publishing `0` would assert a clean bill of health nothing supports. Note a
        **version-scheme change is no longer a reason for `?`** — the scan resolves semver→calver jumps
        (discourse 3.5.3 → 2026.7.1) by falling back to advisory publish dates and reports a real number.