feat: add UnknownKeys::Prior, and explain why there is no Skip

#44's third ask was an opt-in mode so a caller with partially-known
teams need not pre-filter. The requested shape was `Skip` — drop unknown
members. Measured, that is the wrong mode to build.

A team's performance is the *sum* of its members, so dropping one drops
its variance too. On a two-member team with one unknown:

    SKIP  (drop the member)  : performance sigma 2.37
    PRIOR (member at prior)  : performance sigma 6.53   (2.76x wider)

Skipping makes the model *more* certain because it knows *less*, which
is backwards. `Prior` is also the answer the model already gives for a
competitor it knows about but has no evidence for — measured, such a
competitor sits at sigma 4.99 against the prior's 6.0 — so it
corresponds to a state the model can actually be in. Skipping does not.

So the enum is `Reject` (default, unchanged) and `Prior`, and it is
`#[non_exhaustive]` in case a real use for skipping turns up later.

Placed on `HistoryBuilder` rather than per-call. Neither consumer wants
it to vary between queries: one scores thousands of candidate matchups
in a loop, the other's headline feature is predicting a competitor
nobody has faced. That makes it a property of how the model is being
used, and keeps five prediction signatures unchanged.

This also gives #48 the semantics it asked for — "I have never seen this
competitor, here is the prior-informed answer" — which it needs for
predicting a course nobody has played.

`an_unknown_member_widens_its_team_rather_than_narrowing_it` pins the
property that ruled `Skip` out, so a future convenience cannot quietly
reintroduce it.

Closes #44. Refs #48

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ

src/error.rs

@@ -1,5 +1,44 @@
 use std::fmt;
 
+/// How a prediction should treat a key the history has never seen.
+///
+/// Configured once per history via
+/// [`HistoryBuilder::unknown_keys`](crate::HistoryBuilder::unknown_keys).
+/// Neither known consumer wants this to vary between queries — one predicts
+/// thousands of candidate matchups in a loop, the other's headline feature is
+/// predicting a competitor nobody has faced — so it is a property of how you
+/// intend to use the model rather than an argument on five call sites.
+///
+/// # There is deliberately no `Skip`
+///
+/// Dropping an unknown member is the obvious third option and it is wrong. A
+/// team's performance is the *sum* of its members, so removing one removes its
+/// variance too: measured on a two-member team with one unknown, skipping gives
+/// a performance sigma of 2.37 where treating the member as unknown gives 6.53.
+/// An unknown competitor would make the model *more* certain, which is
+/// backwards. `Prior` is also the answer the model already gives for a
+/// competitor it knows about but has no evidence for, so it corresponds to a
+/// state the model can actually be in; skipping does not.
+#[derive(Clone, Copy, Debug, Default, PartialEq, Eq)]
+#[non_exhaustive]
+pub enum UnknownKeys {
+    /// Reject the prediction with [`InferenceError::UnknownKey`].
+    ///
+    /// The default, and the right one when every key is expected to be known:
+    /// a team of strangers should not silently produce a confident-looking
+    /// answer.
+    #[default]
+    Reject,
+    /// Treat an unknown competitor as one sitting at the history's configured
+    /// prior.
+    ///
+    /// This is the honest Bayesian reading — a competitor you have never
+    /// observed is exactly the prior — and it makes "predict a matchup
+    /// involving someone new" a first-class question rather than something a
+    /// caller fakes with a neutral constant.
+    Prior,
+}
+
 #[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq)]
 #[non_exhaustive]
 pub enum InferenceError {