Seven inputs, and the ceiling is probably ten

`prior` became the seventh workflow_dispatch input, so I collected on whether
there is a cap - run 35757458056, with a prior registered ahead of it.

The cap is 10 and exceeding it fails AT DISPATCH, which is the reassuring half:
a rejected dispatch is visible, a dropped input would not be. Held to the weaker
claim it deserves, because the only witness is a community discussion quoting
the runtime error, and it calls the figure a soft limit while asking for 25. The
official syntax page says nothing about it.

The other half came back unanswered and is recorded as unanswered: nothing found
says whether a single input VALUE has a length limit. That matters because prior
is free text, and silent truncation would corrupt a prediction while leaving it
looking intact.

Also the first end-to-end proof of the remote prior: dispatched as an input,
registered on the runner at seq 1, survived the artifact, and arrived here
passing prior-precedes-collection. Until this run that half was guarded only by
a text assertion on YAML.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: StepenkoAnatoli

.github/workflows/collect.yml

@@ -77,6 +77,23 @@ name: collect
 
 on:
   workflow_dispatch:
+    # SEVEN INPUTS, AND THE CEILING IS PROBABLY TEN.
+    #
+    # Checked after `prior` became the seventh, using this collector (run 35757458056).
+    # `workflow_dispatch` refuses at dispatch with ``you may only define up to 10 `inputs`
+    # for a `workflow_dispatch` event`` - which is the reassuring half, because exceeding it
+    # fails loudly rather than dropping an input silently.
+    #
+    # Held to the weaker claim it deserves: the only witness is a GitHub community
+    # discussion quoting that runtime error, and it calls the figure a SOFT limit while
+    # asking for it to be raised to 25. The official workflow-syntax page says nothing about
+    # it - its own "10"s are about concurrency and background steps. So treat three as the
+    # remaining budget, not as a guarantee, and expect a loud failure rather than a quiet one.
+    #
+    # The other half of that check came back UNANSWERED: nothing found says whether a single
+    # input value has a length limit. It matters here because `prior` is free text, and
+    # silent truncation would corrupt a prediction while leaving it looking intact. Unknown,
+    # and recorded as unknown.
     inputs:
       topic:
         description: 'What to research. Visible to anyone who can read this repository.'