feat: IMAP mail sync with thread-to-contact matching (PRD §6.1)

Real IMAP connection via imapflow library:
- Connects to IMAP server (IMAPFlow, TLS on port 993)
- Fetches recent messages (configurable limit, default 20)
- Extracts: from, fromEmail, subject, date, snippet (200 chars)
- Thread-to-contact matching (PRD §6.1):
  1. Match sender email against persons table
  2. If no person match, extract domain and match against company.website
  3. Returns matchedCompany + matchedPerson for each email
- Audit-logged (action: crm.mailsync:imap)
- Zod validated (host, port, user, password, folder, limit)
- 502 on IMAP connection failure with detail
- 400 on validation failure

Tested: invalid creds → 502 'IMAP connection failed', missing host → 400

skills/experiment-suite/references/04a-figure-contract.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Figure Contract For Experiment Packages
+
+Use this before writing plotting code. The figure is part of the experiment's argument, not decoration after the fact.
+
+## Required working note
+
+Write a short contract to `$RUN/figures/figure_contract.md` before generating figures:
+
+```text
+Core conclusion:
+Figure archetype:
+Target output:
+Final size:
+Panel map:
+  a:
+  b:
+  c:
+Evidence hierarchy:
+  hero evidence:
+  validation evidence:
+  controls / robustness:
+Statistics needed:
+Source data needed:
+Reviewer risk:
+```
+
+## Rules
+
+- The core conclusion must be one sentence with a verb.
+- Every panel must answer a distinct question.
+- If removing a panel does not weaken the argument, remove or merge it.
+- Give the main result the clearest panel; do not make every subplot equally important by default.
+- Keep controls and robustness panels visually quieter than the hero panel.
+
+## Figure archetypes
+
+Pick one of these before plotting:
+
+- `quantitative grid`
+- `schematic-led composite`
+- `image plate + quant`
+- `asymmetric mixed-modality figure`
+
+For most experiment-suite outputs, the default is `quantitative grid`. If the experiment involves microscopy, pathology, gels, or spatial overlays, use `image plate + quant` instead.
+
+## Reviewer-risk prompts
+
+Before plotting, ask these privately:
+
+- Is the sample split actually comparable across methods?
+- Are the error bars / intervals defined?
+- Could a skeptical reader claim cherry-picking?
+- Does the figure need a direct disclosure marker because the numbers are simulated?
+- Would a simpler chart communicate the same claim more clearly?