feat(curriculum): Phase 6C module upgrades, security assessment bank, ROOT 11 orientation

Upgrades six PARTIAL modules to the gold-module standard (lesson/demonstration/
knowledge-check/guided-exercise/lab(s)/reflection), preserving every existing lab
activity_id and scenario_id: root-06-m03 (jobs/cronjobs/daemonsets), root-07-m04
(ingress/networkpolicy), root-07-m02 (configuration/secrets, converted in place
from a bare 5-lab bank), root-09-m02 (serviceaccounts/rbac), root-09-m03
(network/supply-chain security), root-10-m03 (troubleshooting framework).

root-05-m01 (20-task kubectl-fluency bank) gets a minimal bookending lesson +
reflection rather than a full redesign, since each task already carries its own
explanation. root-12-m01, root-capstone-m01, and root-09-m04 are promoted to
READY via documented exceptions (no new activities) where adding one would
misrepresent their intentional design.

Wires a new rootnode-security-assessment (exam, 60min, hint_policy disabled)
using the existing Phase 3B assessment engine: 3 required hands-on CORE
scenarios + 4 random-draw pools covering SecurityContext, RBAC, network
policy, and the 7 previously-unwired CKS MCQs. Wires the previously-unwired
readiness-probe-task scenario as an OPTIONAL practice lab in root-10-m01,
using the existing is_required model.

Adds root-11-m01-devops-platform-thinking — an honest, lesson-only ROOT 11
orientation module naming DevOps/platform engineering practices already
exercised in ROOT 05-10/12, explicit that GitOps/CI-CD/IaC/observability need
lab infrastructure this platform doesn't yet provide. No fake labs.

Adds infra/scripts/validate-course-content.js: cross-checks the DB against
scenario/content files for duplicate ids, orphans, invalid references, cycles,
sequence collisions, instructor-notes leakage, and (new) self-paced content
deferring explanation to a live instructor. 0 errors against the resulting
22 courses/modules, 163 activities, 98 scenario files.

No application code changed — every gap was satisfiable with existing tables
(course_modules, module_activities, assessment_definitions) and the existing
content-delivery pipeline.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <[email protected]>

content/root/root-06-kubernetes-application-workloads/m03-jobs-cronjobs-daemonsets/05-reflection.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Reflection: The Right Primitive Is a Correctness Decision, Not a Style Choice
+
+You just built a one-shot Job and a scheduled CronJob for real. Take a few minutes to connect
+this to production thinking.
+
+## Reflection questions
+
+1. If your team accidentally deployed the database backup script as a Deployment instead of a
+   CronJob, what's the FIRST symptom you'd likely notice — and would it look like a bug in the
+   backup script itself, or something else?
+2. A CronJob that fails silently every night for a week is a real, common incident pattern. What
+   would you want monitored to catch this quickly?
+3. Why does "it ran once and worked" not prove a CronJob is configured correctly?
+
+## Real Ops takeaway
+
+**Workload-primitive mistakes often look like application bugs at first.** A backup script
+"crashing" every few minutes on a Deployment isn't a bug in the script — the script did exactly
+what it was told to do (exit when finished) and the Deployment is "correctly" restarting it
+according to its own contract. Recognizing "wrong primitive," not "buggy code," as the root
+cause saves real debugging time.
+
+**A schedule you never verify is a schedule you can't trust.** A CronJob failing every single
+run since deployment is easy to miss if nobody checks — unlike a Deployment's crash-looping
+Pods, which are visible in `kubectl get pods` by default, a CronJob's failed history requires
+someone to actually look at `kubectl get jobs` or the CronJob's own status. Real teams monitor
+CronJob success/failure explicitly rather than assuming silence means success.
+
+This module is complete. Continue to the next module.
+
+## Instructor Notes
+
+**Discussion questions for a live classroom:** question 1 is worth pushing on — many students'
+first instinct is to debug the "crashing" script rather than question the workload type it's
+running under.
+
+**Approximate timing:** 8 minutes live discussion; 5 minutes self-paced writing.
+
+**Optional extension:** ask students to name one alerting rule they'd add for a critical nightly
+CronJob (e.g. "alert if no successful completion recorded in the last 25 hours").