fix: rename seed files and IDs to match cleaned titles

All 100 seed YAML files now have:
- Filenames that match their id field
- IDs that are slugs of their titles
- No cultural identifiers in titles or IDs

70 files renamed. e.g. quaker-meeting-for-worship.yaml -> meeting-for-worship.yaml,
moroccan-jmaa-village.yaml -> jmaa-village-assembly.yaml,
japanese-hansei.yaml -> hansei-reflection.yaml

seeds/copenhagen-consensus-expert-prioritisation.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+id: copenhagen-consensus-expert-prioritisation
+title: Copenhagen Consensus Expert Prioritisation
+description: >-
+  A method where a panel of economists prioritises global challenges by
+  cost-benefit analysis, used by the Copenhagen Consensus Center founded
+  by Bjorn Lomborg. Combines expert panels with economic evaluation to
+  direct attention to the most effective interventions.
+source: Copenhagen Consensus Center
+source_url: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
+tags: [prioritisation, experts, cost-benefit, global, policy]
+forked_from: null
+image: null
+steps:
+  - headline: Commission challenge papers
+    description: >-
+      For each challenge, an expert is commissioned to write a paper
+      assessing interventions and their cost-benefit ratios, with
+      transparent methodology.
+  - headline: Expert panel deliberates
+    description: >-
+      A panel of distinguished economists reads the papers, questions the
+      authors, and deliberates on the relative value of interventions
+      across challenges.
+  - headline: Rank by return
+    description: >-
+      The panel ranks interventions by their benefit-cost ratio, producing
+      a list that directs attention and resources to the highest-return
+      options.
+  - headline: Publish with dissent
+    description: >-
+      The rankings are published with the panel's reasoning and any
+      dissenting notes, so the basis is transparent and open to challenge.
+  - headline: Invite response
+    description: >-
+      The wider community of experts and the public are invited to respond,
+      with the possibility of revisiting rankings in light of new
+      evidence.
+outcome: >-
+  A transparent prioritisation of interventions, based on cost-benefit
+  analysis and expert deliberation, published with reasoning for
+  scrutiny.
+practice: >-
+  The cost-benefit frame has limits — it can miss values not easily
+  monetised. Use it as one input, not as the answer. Transparency of
+  method is what makes it challengeable.