feat(indexer): index binary-version attestations (0.19 reportUri is event-only)

[drewstone]

0.19 removed reportUri from the on-chain Attestation struct (event-only), and attestations were never indexed. Adds a BinaryVersionAttestation entity materialized from BinaryVersionAttested (reportUri/kind/severity) + BinaryVersionAttestationRevoked, mirroring the existing BinaryVersionRecorded indexing. kind stored as a readable enum with UNKNOWN fallback. Subscribed on both config files. codegen + build green. Unblocks the dapp's attestation UI on 0.19 (reportUri now from the indexer, not the lossy view). The other view→event fields the dapp needs (binaryUri, slash disputeReason/disputedAt/proposedAt) were already event-sourced by #196/#202 — no change needed there.

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — fc490fe8

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-07-07T20:31:42Z}

[tangletools]

⚪ Value Audit — audit-incomplete

Verdict	audit-incomplete
Concerns	0 (none)
Heuristic	0.0s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	20.6s (2 bridge agents)
Total	20.6s

💰 Value — error

value agent produced no parseable value-audit JSON.

• Model: opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro
• Bridge attempts: 3
• Bridge error: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7: bridge stream ended without value-audit content; opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2: bridge stream ended without value-audit content; opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro: bridge stream ended without value-audit content

🎯 Usefulness — error

usefulness agent produced no parseable value-audit JSON.

• Model: opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro
• Bridge attempts: 3
• Bridge error: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2: bridge stream ended without value-audit content; opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7: bridge stream ended without value-audit content; opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro: bridge stream ended without value-audit content

No PR concerns were produced because the value/usefulness agent pass did not complete. Treat this audit as incomplete, not as approval.

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260707T203402Z}