docs(README): soften "token-efficient" bullet to match reality

The original bullet ("Token-efficient. Reviewer receives drafts inline
rather than re-reading files. Verification runs once, at the end.") is
technically true for the reviewer-dispatch path but invites readers to
infer that the overall workflow uses fewer tokens than master. That is
not actually defensible: the new Step 5 (compile-and-inspect) spends
tokens on Read'ing both PDFs and on layout-fix iteration cycles, which
typically offsets the savings from inline draft passing and scoped
reviewer reads. End-to-end the workflow is roughly token-neutral, with
the variance dominated by how many layout fixes the CV needs.

Reframes the bullet as "Token-efficient reviewer dispatch" (which is
accurate and verifiable from the prompt structure) and adds an explicit
note that Step 5 spends some of those savings on PDF rendering. The
trade is real - tokens for fewer broken PDFs reaching the user - and
worth surfacing honestly rather than overclaiming.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

README.md

@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ All claims in the CV and cover letter are verified against your actual profile.
 - **PDF verification loop.** Most LaTeX-resume templates produce "looks fine in the .tex" output that breaks in the PDF: job titles orphan to the next page, cover letters spill onto page 2, bullet fonts silently fall back to the body font. The `/apply` command compiles and visually inspects every PDF and applies targeted fixes (`\needspace`, `\enlargethispage`, font-matching wrappers for list items) until the layout is clean. This runs automatically on every application.
 - **Relevance-weighted CV cutting.** When a CV overflows 2 pages, the workflow does not cut mechanically from the "oldest" section. It scores each candidate line by (a) relevance to the target posting, (b) uniqueness in the document, and (c) whether the cover letter depends on it, and cuts the lowest-total-score line first. An older-role bullet that hits posting keywords survives ahead of a recent-role bullet that does not.
 - **Drafter-reviewer separation.** The drafter writes; a second Claude agent, spawned with a fresh context, researches the company and critiques the drafts. The drafter then revises. This catches missed keywords, weak framing, and generic language that a single pass often leaves in.
-- **Token-efficient.** Reviewer receives drafts inline rather than re-reading files. Verification runs once, at the end.
+- **Token-efficient reviewer dispatch.** The reviewer agent receives drafts inline rather than re-reading them, and the verification checklist runs once at the end of the workflow rather than being duplicated by both agents. Note: the new compile-and-inspect step in Step 5 spends some of those savings on PDF rendering and layout iteration — the workflow trades some end-to-end token cost for a real reduction in broken PDFs reaching the user.
 
 ## Customization