fix: a re-offered sentinel is not data loss

139bfbb made the channel refuse a sentinel offered while one was still
pending — correct, and the reason is a data race: overwriting wrote
eof_value_ while the consumer could be moving the previous one out of it,
which ThreadSanitizer reports as a torn refcount and a heap-use-after-free.
That part stands.

What was wrong was the accounting. The refusal recorded a drop, and PoolNode
reported it through the overflow event callback, on the theory that two
control tokens on one channel means the stream ended twice and is a caller
protocol error.

It is not. A source that has reached the end of its input keeps being polled
and keeps returning EOF — that is the normal steady state, not an error — so
the token is re-offered on every firing. Refusing a re-offer loses nothing:
the pending token carries the same meaning and is already on its way.

Found by running it. scene-actor-extraction on a 14 s clip reported

    [main] ERROR: frames were dropped (channel overflow):
      frame_source: 2
      scene_annotate: 1
    [main] The output would describe footage that was never analysed.
           Refusing to report success.

and exited 2, on a run where nothing had been dropped and every frame was
analysed. frame_source emits EOF once and then returns it forever
(frame_source_node.hpp:76), so the count grows with however many times the
source is polled after the end. The pipeline's own loss detector — which
exists because a dropped frame silently corrupts the output — was being
tripped by a clean run, which is the one thing a loss detector must not do.

So SlotBusy now records nothing and reports nothing. The cost, stated
plainly: a genuinely distinct second token would also be refused silently,
and the channel cannot tell a re-offer from a distinct token. Re-offering is
the case that actually occurs; the delivery guarantee that matters — the
first token arrives — holds either way.

The test asserting the old behaviour is inverted rather than deleted, and now
also checks that the token which was accepted is the one delivered. 148/148.

include/kpn/channel.hpp

@@ -267,10 +267,22 @@ public:
         // has_eof_, the consumer is the only one that clears it, so observing
         // false here means the consumer has finished with the storage and will
         // not touch it again until this store publishes the next token.
-        if (has_eof_.load(std::memory_order_acquire)) {
-            stats_.record_drop();
+        //
+        // Not counted as a drop, and this is the important part. A source that
+        // has reached the end of its input keeps being polled and keeps
+        // returning EOF — that is the normal steady state, not an error — so a
+        // token arriving while one is already pending is a *re-offer*, and
+        // refusing it loses nothing: the pending token carries the same
+        // meaning and is already on its way. Counting it as a drop made a
+        // clean run report data loss and exit non-zero.
+        //
+        // The cost of that choice, stated plainly: a genuinely distinct second
+        // token would also be refused silently, and the channel cannot tell the
+        // two apart. Re-offering is the case that actually occurs here, and the
+        // delivery guarantee that matters — the first token arrives — holds
+        // either way.
+        if (has_eof_.load(std::memory_order_acquire))
             return SentinelResult::SlotBusy;
-        }
         eof_value_ = make_storage(std::move(value));
         has_eof_.store(true, std::memory_order_release);
         // Wake a consumer blocked in pop(): the sentinel is now deliverable even