ruview-unified: strengthen 3 tests whose names overclaim what they verify (PR #1437 follow-up)

[ruvnet]

Follow-up from the PR #1437 (ruview-unified, ADR-273..282) deep review: full write-up at
https://gist.github.com/ruvnet/89795f3c4b8ea166cff5ac35ae4c7651

The functional bugs found in review are already fixed and merged (panics, NaN
corruption, entity-conflation, wrong center-freq for real captures, missing
task-field validation, untested purpose branches). This issue tracks three
remaining items that are about test rigor, not correctness — none block
anything, but the tests currently claim to verify more than they do:

1. heads.rs's factorized_pose_resists_room_shortcut_leakage never
   exercises the actual encoder. It hand-constructs synthetic 2-3 dim
   vectors where the anti-leakage property (room_x included vs excluded) is
   baked in by the test author, not learned or verified against
   RfEncoder::encode_content's real pooled-token representation. The PR's
   cited MPJPE numbers (0.0003 m vs 0.2534 m) describe the head's algebra on
   that toy input, not the real 24-dim-token -> 128-dim z pipeline. Worth
   an end-to-end version that trains the actual encoder + RePos head on
   synthetic multi-room windows and checks the room-shortcut leakage there.

2. gaussian/gain.rs's empty_map_returns_exact_friis never invokes the
   erf/Beer-Lambert path it's named for. With no Gaussians, optical_depth
   short-circuits to tau = 0.0 before the loop that would call
   line_integral/erf ever runs, so the test is really "float
   multiplication by an exact 1.0." The physically meaningful check
   (line_integral_matches_numeric_quadrature, 1e-6 vs 1D quadrature) is
   legitimate and already exists — this item is just about not citing the
   trivial test as if it validated the closed-form solution.

3. "Learns a 6.1 dB obstruction in 20 observations" is 20 repeats of one
   measurement converging one scalar unknown, since tau = occ * integral
   is exactly linear in the single spawned Gaussian's occupancy. It's a
   correct convergence check of the observe_link update rule (each call is
   a damped Newton step, residual shrinks geometrically), but reads as
   evidence of learning from diverse observations, which it isn't. Consider
   a version with several distinct links/measurements resolving genuinely
   different unknowns, if that scenario is meant to be demonstrated.

None of these are blocking — they're about making the test names and PR
claims match what the tests actually exercise. Tracked on
chore/pr1437-followup-test-rigor (currently empty, branched off main).