Cap76 nits

[JFWooten4]

I think these minor changes are clarifying.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR makes small editorial/formatting adjustments to the CAP-0076 protocol document to improve readability and correct/standardize wording and links.

Changes:

• Rephrases parts of the Simple Summary and Motivation for clarity.
• Standardizes several relative links to the contents/ CSV file.
• Tweaks formatting (including introducing a NOTE admonition block) and minor wording adjustments in the specification/security sections.

[Copilot]

The Simple Summary sentence is grammatically awkward: the clause “and have never had corruption observed” reads as a dangling modifier relative to “entries”. Consider rephrasing (e.g., “Fixes entries … that were archived in a corrupted state … and for which corruption has never been observed”) to avoid ambiguity about what was observed and when.

Suggested change

	Fixes the entries that have been archived in corrupted state due to a bug in protocol 23 *and have never had corruption observed*. Also updates the fee pool to reflect the unintentional XLM burns.
	Fixes entries that were archived in a corrupted state due to a bug in protocol 23 and for which corruption has never been observed. Also updates the fee pool to reflect the unintentional XLM burns.

[Copilot]

“networks' total XLM balance” should be singular possessive (“network’s total …”). As written, it reads like a plural possessive and is grammatically incorrect.

Suggested change

	> This CAP does not allow amendment of any state that has actually been observed due to restoration. The only change concerning restored corrupted entries is an amendment of the fee pool, implemented just in order to reflect the networks' total XLM balance.
	> This CAP does not allow amendment of any state that has actually been observed due to restoration. The only change concerning restored corrupted entries is an amendment of the fee pool, implemented just in order to reflect the network's total XLM balance.

[Copilot]

This introduces GitHub-specific admonition syntax (> [!NOTE]). A quick scan of core/ CAPs shows no other uses of [!NOTE]; to keep formatting consistent and renderer-agnostic, consider using the existing prose style used elsewhere in CAPs (e.g., a normal paragraph starting with “Note,”) instead.

Suggested change

	> [!NOTE]
	> This CAP does not allow amendment of any state that has actually been observed due to restoration. The only change concerning restored corrupted entries is an amendment of the fee pool, implemented just in order to reflect the networks' total XLM balance.
	Note, this CAP does not allow amendment of any state that has actually been observed due to restoration. The only change concerning restored corrupted entries is an amendment of the fee pool, implemented just in order to reflect the network's total XLM balance.

[JFWooten4]

True, but the code's locale and reference point across all documentation is GitHub. example

[Copilot]

“occurred due to bug” is missing an article; “due to the bug” reads correctly and is consistent with surrounding phrasing.

Suggested change

`31879035` stroops will be added to the `feePool` in the `LedgerHeader`. This change reflects the XLM burn that occurred due to bug. Specifically, two XLM contract balances have been restored with a balance that is lower than the balance they had before archival. The specific XLM burns are as follows (these can also be verified in [corrupted_hot_archive_entries](../contents/cap-0076/corrupted_hot_archive_entries.csv)):

`31879035` stroops will be added to the `feePool` in the `LedgerHeader`. This change reflects the XLM burn that occurred due to the bug. Specifically, two XLM contract balances have been restored with a balance that is lower than the balance they had before archival. The specific XLM burns are as follows (these can also be verified in [corrupted_hot_archive_entries](../contents/cap-0076/corrupted_hot_archive_entries.csv)):