Improve confidentiality choices for Illinois filings

[nonprofittechy]

Partner feedback

On Your Documents / Organize documents, make the confidentiality choice easier for self-represented litigants:

• Default to non-confidential.
• Add explanatory language that a court order or rule is required to file confidentially; Illinois partner will provide exact language.
• Only show the confidentiality question when it applies to the filing/document type.
• Use radio buttons rather than a dropdown.

Current behavior

Radio-button rendering is already implemented for document-type/confidentiality choices, so that portion is complete. The current UI does not reliably default a two-choice confidentiality field to non-confidential, does not include the requested rule/order explanation, and still renders the confidentiality section even when no choices are available.

Acceptance criteria

• When the EFSP offers public/non-confidential and confidential choices, default to the public/non-confidential choice unless a previously saved value exists.
• Add configurable jurisdiction-specific explanatory/help text for confidentiality.
• Support the Illinois-provided language about a court order/rule requirement.
• Hide the confidentiality field entirely when it is not applicable / no choices are available.
• Preserve any saved user selection when revisiting/editing the filing.
• Continue to render the available choices as radio buttons.

Related issues

• Document Type dropdown is the same as "Confidential or not" #9 — Document Type / confidential vs. non-confidential mapping (completed)
• Options with only 1-2 choices shouldn't be dropdowns #130 — short choice fields, including confidentiality, should not use dropdowns (completed)

[nonprofittechy]

I'm a little concerned about directly setting a default value for confidentiality (people might just skip over/not see the option), but we clearly do need to give filers some guidance that "confidential" is a rare setting to use.