docs(tck): separate "answers the question" from "satisfies the capability"

The note explaining why this deviation names no capability said @numeric-coercion
is "a neighbouring question -- whether 0.5 satisfies an integer request -- and
this provider satisfies it". True of the question and false of the capability:
the SDK's in-memory provider refuses 0.5, which is the answer the lossy row wants,
and fails both lossless rows, which is why neither self-test declares the tag.

Left as it stood, that sentence reads as a provider satisfying a capability it
withholds -- and it sits two files from the notes that now explain, following
spec@045950ca, which withholdings the appendix still calls right. This one is:
a provider that does not attempt the coercion at all, passing the lossy row by
rejecting every float, which is the shortcut the lossless rows exist to catch.
The boolean-as-Integer gap this entry is actually about is a third thing again,
mandatory and ungated, which is what it names no capability for.

Signed-off-by: Simon Schrottner <simon.schrottner@flagsmith.com>

Author: aepfli

tools/openfeature-tck/tests/conftest.py

@@ -48,8 +48,18 @@
 No ``capability``: the scenario carries no capability tag, because returning the
 code default on a type mismatch is mandatory. ``@numeric-coercion`` is a
 neighbouring question -- whether 0.5 satisfies an integer request -- and this
-provider satisfies it, so attributing the deviation there would be wrong twice
-over.
+provider answers *that* one the way the tag asks, by refusing it, so attributing
+the deviation there would be wrong twice over.
+
+Which is not the same as satisfying the capability, and the distinction matters
+now that Appendix F has corrected its note on it. The tag is withheld here
+because this provider does not coerce at all: it passes the lossy row by
+rejecting every float, which is the shortcut the two lossless rows exist to
+catch, and it fails both of those. That is the withholding the appendix still
+calls right -- a provider that cannot attempt the behaviour -- rather than the
+one it now rules out, where a provider attempts it and gets a direction wrong.
+The boolean-as-Integer gap is a third thing again: mandatory, ungated, and the
+reason this entry names no capability.
 """