The fact model page never learns the materialization registry

docs/architecture/explanation/fact-model.adoc is the contributor-facing home for the store’s derive-on-read doctrine, and it does not know that a registry now exists. No authored page under docs/ mentions meta_materialize, the _live naming convention, or the refresh entry point, and the page’s doctrine sentence still states the narrow rule ("materialization is sanctioned above where a view cannot serve") that the registry widened: a relation may now be stored because a view expresses its rule correctly and only too slowly.

The page already sanctions the mechanism, INSERT INTO derived SELECT ... FROM <view> on the capture cadence, which is why nothing shipped is unsanctioned and this is a documentation gap rather than a correctness one. What is missing is that a contributor sent to that page cannot learn from it how to register a relation, or why two relations under one rule carry the names they do. `Materializations’s class javadoc points at that page for exactly that rationale, so the pointer currently lands somewhere that does not answer.

Found by the independent Done-gate review of the materialization work, which correctly classified it as out of that item’s stated contract: the contract named three DDL paragraphs and all three moved.