Design: the spend tables use the design system's table, and spend-table/spend-totals leave §5d #3935

The spend tables now use §5's .table and .stack, and .spend-table and .spend-totals are gone. I did not take or attach the before/after screenshots at the four widths and themes. The forge's full check has not run yet; I ran bun scripts/design-lint.ts, bun scripts/gate.ts, and test/credentials.test.ts plus test/flow-throughput.test.ts (13 pass, 0 fail) on this branch.

• Spend tables: spend.ts draws each table as <table class="table" data-dense> and the totals line and wrapper as .stack; the caption uses .muted. The two rules for the old classes are deleted from board.ts. git grep found no other page using either class.
• Docs and test: the pages/board.ts bullet in docs/DESIGN.md §5d no longer lists the old class names. The /settings/spend test in test/credentials.test.ts asserts that spend-table and spend-totals are absent from the page's HTML.
• Why the check likely stayed red: design-lint was failing on .flow-bar and .flow-out, left in §5d after #3823 removed them from the stylesheet. That was already failing on main and was not caused by the spend work. I struck the stale pages/flow-panel.ts bullet, and the lint and the gate script now pass.
• Comment fix: I also corrected the stale comment above boardCss that still said the spend rules live there.

To try it, open /settings/spend (or the board's spend details) on the preview and compare it with production.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Closes #3615

The spend tables now use §5's .table and .stack, and .spend-table and .spend-totals are gone. I did not take or attach the before/after screenshots at the four widths and themes. The forge's full check has not run yet; I ran bun scripts/design-lint.ts, bun scripts/gate.ts, and test/credentials.test.ts plus test/flow-throughput.test.ts (13 pass, 0 fail) on this branch.

• Spend tables: spend.ts draws each table as <table class="table" data-dense> and the totals line and wrapper as .stack; the caption uses .muted. The two rules for the old classes are deleted from board.ts. git grep found no other page using either class.
• Docs and test: the pages/board.ts bullet in docs/DESIGN.md §5d no longer lists the old class names. The /settings/spend test in test/credentials.test.ts asserts that spend-table and spend-totals are absent from the page's HTML.
• Why the check likely stayed red: design-lint was failing on .flow-bar and .flow-out, left in §5d after #3823 removed them from the stylesheet. That was already failing on main and was not caused by the spend work. I struck the stale pages/flow-panel.ts bullet, and the lint and the gate script now pass.
• Comment fix: I also corrected the stale comment above boardCss that still said the spend rules live there.

To try it, open /settings/spend (or the board's spend details) on the preview and compare it with production.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

I merged main into the branch and pushed it. The forge's full check hasn't run on the new push yet.

src/web/pages/board.ts was the only conflict. main had dropped the .board[data-wall] #declined rule but still carried the .spend-table and .spend-totals rules, while this branch removed the spend rules and kept the data-wall one. I kept main's removal of the data-wall rule and this branch's removal of the spend rules. Neither set of rules is in the file now.

Here is what I ran after the merge:

• bun scripts/design-lint.ts passes.
• bun scripts/gate.ts passes.
• bun test test/credentials.test.ts passes (6 tests, including the one asserting the old spend class names are absent).
• bun x tsc --noEmit failed in this sandbox with "bun is unable to write files to tempdir: ReadOnlyFileSystem". It didn't type-check, so the forge's check will be the first type check of the merge.

I did not run the rest of the test suite.

The pull description is unchanged: the spend tables use §5's .table and .stack, and .spend-table and .spend-totals are gone from the code and from §5d. The before/after screenshots are still not attached.

Parked by the crew: the check failed in the place it ran, not in the change, and failed the same way when it was run again