feat!: N-team outcome prediction with draw mass, replacing the 2-team panic

`predict_outcome` asserted `teams.len() == 2` and returned `[p, 1 - p]`,
allocating no probability to a draw even with `p_draw > 0`. For a
draw-enabled model the numbers were simply wrong, at any team count.

It now returns `Result<Prediction, InferenceError>` and supports N teams.

Two algorithms, both deterministic:

- Who finishes first. Performances are independent Gaussians, so this
  separates into a one-dimensional integral per team rather than a
  multivariate orthant probability. Adaptive Gauss-Kronrod evaluates it
  to ~1e-15, matching the exact two-team closed form.
- A specific finishing order. The factor graph only constrains
  rank-adjacent teams, so a full order is a chain of local constraints,
  not a general orthant integral. That chain collapses into a sequential
  recursion over cumulative integrals: O(teams * grid) per order.

Fixed-node Gauss-Hermite is the obvious tool for the first and is a trap:
when a rival's sigma is small the CDF product becomes a step narrower
than the node spacing, and the nodes step over it. Measured 4.4e-4 off
the closed form on a mildly skewed matchup and 1.7e-2 on a small-sigma
one, while still returning something that looks like a probability.
Adaptive refinement is what makes that case safe, and
`win_probabilities_survive_a_rival_with_a_tiny_sigma` pins it down.

The acceptance test is an identity rather than a golden: the outcome
space is exhaustive and disjoint, so the probabilities sum to one. Any
drift is integration error and nothing else. Gauss-Hermite failed it at
4.4e-4; this holds to ~1e-9.

Also from #21: unknown keys are now reported rather than dropped, so a
team of strangers can no longer produce a confident-looking prediction.
`predict_quality` returns `Result` for the same reason.

BREAKING CHANGE: `predict_outcome` returns `Result<Prediction, _>`
instead of `Vec<f64>`; `predict_quality` returns `Result<f64, _>`.

Refs #21, #39

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

src/lib.rs

@@ -126,6 +126,8 @@ mod key_table;
 mod matrix;
 mod observer;
 mod outcome;
+mod predict;
+pub(crate) mod quadrature;
 mod rating;
 pub(crate) mod schedule;
 pub mod storage;
@@ -143,6 +145,7 @@ pub use key_table::KeyTable;
 use matrix::Matrix;
 pub use observer::{NullObserver, Observer};
 pub use outcome::Outcome;
+pub use predict::Prediction;
 pub use rating::Rating;
 pub use schedule::ScheduleReport;
 pub use time::{Time, Untimed};
@@ -155,6 +158,13 @@ pub const P_DRAW: f64 = 0.0;
 pub const EPSILON: f64 = 1e-6;
 pub const ITERATIONS: usize = 30;
 
+/// Largest team count `History::predict_outcome` will enumerate.
+///
+/// The outcome space holds `n! * 2^(n-1)` events, so it grows factorially:
+/// 1_920 at five teams, 23_040 at six, 322_560 at seven. Six is where
+/// enumerating on a caller's behalf stops being reasonable.
+pub const MAX_PREDICTED_TEAMS: usize = predict::MAX_TEAMS_FOR_DISTRIBUTION;
+
 const SQRT_TAU: f64 = 2.5066282746310002;
 
 pub const N01: Gaussian = Gaussian::from_ms(0.0, 1.0);