docs(process): mark STUMBLES S2 (continuous-components doctrine) done; next = S4

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/process/continue-with-stumbles-s2-s6.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
   `ARCHETYPE_DESCRIPTIONS` in morfo/types.ts; docs-check I7 freshness guard
   (negative-tested); linked from README/CANON/morfo/component-audit.
 
-## NEXT — implement S2, S4 from these VERIFIED plans (S3 DONE)
+## NEXT — implement S4 from this VERIFIED plan (S2, S3 DONE)
 
 A read-only scoping workflow (`scope-stumbles-s2-s6`) mapped each against the
 real code. S2/S3/S4 returned high-confidence plans (below). **S5 and S6 did the
@@ -94,7 +94,17 @@ mirroring `part-present` exactly:
   part (even optional-unrendered) so absence is unambiguous. Non-breaking (no
   existing morfo uses it).
 
-### S2 — "Continuous components" doctrine in `docs/architecture/sema.md`
+### S2 — "Continuous components" doctrine in `docs/architecture/sema.md` — ✅ DONE (`1da36ca6`)
+
+Shipped as a new `## Continuous components (drag, swipe, hold)` section after
+the emit contract (before `## The per-family intent policy`), covering: the
+single `runtime.trigger` door + `void` vs `await` (hold opt-out/in), `coincident`
+vs `post` for a moving value (Slider worked example), rAF throttling of
+continuous pointer emits vs unthrottled keyboard commit-set, and "a continuous
+event's cascade rule must not override the primitives the per-emit `overrides`
+control". Every claim adversarially fact-checked against the Slider/Drawer
+providers + morfo + sema pack (zero discrepancies). `docs:check` = 0 errors.
+Original plan preserved below for provenance.
 
 Pure doc addition, grounded in the REAL Slider/Drawer code (verified answers to
 the three open questions):