fix!: report an unresolvable prediction grid instead of clamping

`grid_shape` asked for 12 nodes across the narrowest feature and then
clamped to MAX_GRID_POINTS with no detection that the request was not
met. Past `step/sigma ~ 1.7` the trapezoid rule stops resolving the
density, and the result is unbounded:

  sigma_a   step/sig_a   P(a first)   exact      total
  2.0e-3      0.86       0.515953    0.515953   1.000000
  1.0e-3      1.72       0.517185    0.515953   1.002388
  1.0e-4     17.17       2.791336    0.515953   5.410065

A probability of 2.79. Reachable through `predict_outcome` with a pinned
reference competitor — a documented pattern — where `predict_outcome` and
`predict_win_probabilities` disagreed 44x and `predict_outcome` was the
wrong one.

There is no useful answer on the far side of that cliff, so this reports
`GridTooCoarse` rather than guessing, and the message points at
`predict_win_probabilities`, which answers the same matchup through
adaptive quadrature and is accurate there to 1e-13. The floor is 4 nodes
per feature rather than the 12 requested, because the request carries
margin: measured accurate to 2.2e-12 at 1.4 nodes per sigma and wrong by
1.2e-3 at 0.7.

This also fixes the `ln k` ceiling violation. `expected_information_gain`
weights `probability * divergence`, so probabilities of 3.97 and 2.62
made it return 3.237828 nats against `ln 2 = 0.693147` — 4.67x over. The
crate's docs call that ceiling its sharpest test and record a prototype
once returning 4.77 nats; it was live again by a different route.

The new sweep then caught a second, independent defect: `kl_divergence`
returned NEGATIVE values, worst -5.55e-17, exactly one ULP of its
`- 1.0`. Rewritten as `0.5*(u - ln1p(u)) + gap^2/(2*var_p)` with
`u = var_q/var_p - 1`, so both terms are non-negative by construction.
It is also more accurate where it matters: at `u = 1e-9` the old form
returned 0.0 where the true value is 2.5e-19, and well-conditioned cases
are unchanged.

tests/prediction_bounds.rs sweeps rather than spot-checks, because a
single fixture cannot defend a bound like this — the previous check
passed throughout. It asserts the sweep still reaches the coarse-grid
regime, so it cannot quietly stop testing the case it was written for.

BREAKING CHANGE: `predict_outcome`, `predict_ranking` and
`expected_information_gain` return `GridTooCoarse` for matchups whose
performance sigmas are too far apart to integrate on one grid. They
previously returned wrong answers, including probabilities above 1.

Closes #55, closes #56

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

src/history.rs

@@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ impl<T: Time, D: Drift<T>, O: Observer<T>, K: Eq + Hash + Clone> History<T, D, O
         Ok(Prediction::new(crate::predict::outcome_distribution(
             &performances,
             &self.margins(&sizes),
-        )))
+        )?))
     }
 
     /// Probability of one specific finishing order.
@@ -1579,11 +1579,7 @@ impl<T: Time, D: Drift<T>, O: Observer<T>, K: Eq + Hash + Clone> History<T, D, O
         }
 
         let (performances, sizes) = self.performances(teams)?;
-        Ok(crate::predict::ranking_probability(
-            &performances,
-            &self.margins(&sizes),
-            ranks,
-        ))
+        crate::predict::ranking_probability(&performances, &self.margins(&sizes), ranks)
     }
 
     /// Run the full forward+backward convergence loop to a fixed point.