add translation-review-comment skill and doc review workflow

- skills/translation-review-comment/SKILL.md: 14 rules distilled from 473
  Wade editor comments across 3 manuscripts
- translate-files/佛法与企业管理/review-comments.dj: manual comment
  reference for maple's translation (anchored comments not possible via API)
- docs/google-docs-comment-journey.dj: full journey log from OAuth setup
  to discovering Google Drive API's anchor limitation

skills/translation-review/references/deliberation-protocol.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+# Deliberation Protocol (审议规程)
+
+From 东方译场审议手册 (Oriental Translation Review Manual, 2026-03-25).
+Guidance from Ven. Jiqun on translation review culture and process.
+
+## Core Standards
+
+1. **Accuracy (准确性)** — primary. Convey content-level meaning, not word-by-word
+   correspondence. Deepen accuracy iteratively; grasp the "inner spirit" rather than
+   fixating on literal vs free translation.
+
+2. **Readability (可读性)** — secondary. Fluent sentences, graceful expression. Do
+   not pursue endless revision; what is achievable now is the best for now.
+
+**Test**: invite 5–10 readers to read aloud and give feedback — is it clear or
+obscure? Is it concise? Is the meaning clear?
+
+## Decision-Making
+
+When opinions differ:
+- Compare which version is more accurate and more readable
+- Do NOT cling to your own view (不执着于己见)
+- If two people cannot decide, invite 5–10 to read and vote
+- Remember: the translation is for the READERS, not for yourself
+
+## Core Principle: Rejoice First (随喜)
+
+Before flagging issues, affirm what is good. Professional translation companies
+emphasize positive feedback to build translator confidence and good collaboration.
+Criticism alone — however precise — breeds resistance and harms the final result.
+
+In the Oriental Translation Workshop, rejoicing in others' merits cultivates
+sympathetic joy (随喜), compassion, selflessness, and boundless merit — while
+encouraging others' wholesome efforts.
+
+**Practice**: develop eyes that SEE the merits in a translation. Rejoice with
+genuine gladness. Examples:
+- "So many technical terms and complex logic here — you handled it beautifully!"
+- "This word choice is exactly right."
+- "The prose is so clean and fluid!"
+- "Excellent!" / "Good word choice!"
+
+## Three Principles for Giving Suggestions
+
+1. **Lower the self** — use compassionate, gentle, skillful language
+2. **Be diligent and attentive** — find the actual problems
+3. **Tier your suggestions** — make clear what MUST change, what COULD improve,
+   and what needs DISCUSSION
+
+## Three-Tier Issue System
+
+### Level 1: Spelling, Grammar, Format (拼写、语法、格式)
+
+**Action**: fix directly, keep tracked changes visible.
+
+May annotate for translator development:
+- "MPI format uses American English — `toward` not `towards`."
+- "Use `Chan` here, not `Zen`."
+- "MPI format does not use diacritics — `Yogacara` not `Yogācāra`."
+
+### Level 2: Omission, Mistranslation, Wordiness, Tone, Word Choice
+(漏翻、错翻、啰嗦、语气问题、用词问题)
+
+**Action**: preferably flag for translator to fix themselves; may also fix
+directly with tracked changes.
+
+Suggested language:
+- "Did we miss something here?"
+- "This sentence is quite long — could we split it into 2–3?"
+- "The translation here differs from the original. It reads as if the teacher
+  is saying X, but I think he means Y. What do you think?"
+- "This word feels a bit strong here — your thoughts?"
+- (After direct adjustment) "I tightened this sentence — does this work?"
+
+### Level 3: Citation Versions, Slightly Awkward Wording, Marginal Readability
+(引用版本不当、用词稍微不当、阅读体验略差)
+
+**Action**: flag and discuss with translator.
+
+Suggested language:
+- "I found another citation version that may be more concise — which do you prefer?"
+- "Could we use this word instead? Might fit better."
+- "Could you take another look at this passage? I feel readability could improve
+  but I'm not sure how — your thoughts?"
+
+## Tone Guide
+
+- Address the translator as 菩萨 (Bodhisattva) — respectful peer address
+- Use questions, not commands: "Could we...?" "What do you think?" "Would this work?"
+- Frame as collaborative inquiry, not correction