test(scheduler-sim-diagnostics): strengthen coincidentally-passing assertions (task 10.1)

Six pre-existing assertions in test_repl_limit_table.c (across 4 test
functions) used bare strstr() substring checks against whole-number
fixture values on "mem" -- e.g. strstr(captured, "accounted=4.00").
Task 9's fix changed the actual output to "accounted=4.000000 (4.00
B)", but the old substring is a literal prefix of the new one, so
these assertions kept passing by coincidence of formatting, providing
zero actual regression protection for the fix.

Strengthened each to assert the full corrected "<raw> (<human>)"
string. Proved via TDD: reverting task 9's fix now makes all 6
strengthened assertions (plus task 9's own 2 genuine tests) fail;
restoring the fix returns the suite to 85/85 green.

Confirmed via full-file scan that no other loose assertion of this
shape remains, and that info worker/info resource's own regression
suites were never vulnerable to this class of bug (they build expected
strings dynamically rather than hardcoding literal substrings).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RLSNJhNoULvVcUhXEFafQC

.kiro/specs/scheduler-sim-diagnostics/tasks.md

@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
   - _Boundary: REPL Limit Info Command_
 
 - [ ] 10. Validation: Confirm correctness, consistency, and no regression
-- [ ] 10.1 Re-verify existing test coverage against the corrected usage display
+- [x] 10.1 Re-verify existing test coverage against the corrected usage display
   - Task 9 found that fixing the resource-classification defect did NOT break any pre-existing assertion outright — instead, several existing assertions on the live usage display's amounts turned out to be loose substring checks against whole-number fixture values, which happen to still match the corrected, human-augmented output by coincidence of formatting (the old expected text is a literal prefix of the new one) rather than by genuinely exercising the fix
   - Identify every such loose, coincidentally-still-passing assertion, and strengthen each one to assert the actual corrected output precisely enough that it would fail if the resource-classification fix were reverted
   - Observable: each strengthened assertion demonstrably fails when checked against the prior (defective) behavior and passes against the corrected behavior — not merely a new assertion added alongside an untouched, still-coincidentally-passing old one