Stop discouraging new-pattern drafts from a single talk

The old guidance ("one talk is one data point, not proof a pattern is
widely applicable") read as a reason to hold back drafting a genuine
new-pattern candidate. But this process only ever sees one talk at a
time, so that standard would mean a new pattern candidate never gets
drafted at all. Checked meta/contributor-handbook.md: maturity level 1
(Initial) has NO validation requirement - it's explicitly for a single
unstructured idea. One instance is what's needed for level 2
(Structured); only 3+ need level 3 (Validated). So the guidance now says
to draft at Initial from one talk, which is exactly what that level is
for - confirmed against Paired Onboarding Sprint (#926), the first
pattern this skill has drafted this way.

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: rrrutledge

.claude/skills/analyze-innersource-video/SKILL.md

@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ Then use `AskUserQuestion` to confirm which actions to take. **Do not edit any f
 - Use the prompt in `meta/pattern-drafts-with-ai.md` as the basis for drafting.
 - File name: lowercase, hyphenated, matching the title. Place in `patterns/1-initial/`.
 - Set Status to `Initial`, Known Instances to the talk itself, Author to TBD, omit Acknowledgments.
-- Be honest about what evidence the talk provides — one talk is one data point, not proof a pattern is widely applicable.
+- **One talk is enough to draft at Initial — don't hold back.** Per `meta/contributor-handbook.md`, maturity level 1 (Initial) has no validation requirement at all; it's explicitly for a single unstructured idea, even a "donut" with missing sections. One known instance clears the bar for level 2 (Structured); only 3+ instances need level 3 (Validated). So a genuine new-pattern candidate from one talk should be drafted at Initial, not held back for more evidence that this process — one talk at a time — will never accumulate on its own.
 
 ### Step 8 — Git workflow