README: narrow the "not hard-coded" claim to what is true

It said no organisation appears "in a path, URL or workflow reference",
while the usage examples immediately above necessarily contain
`https://git.chaosbit.de/weblib/fdroid-repo-ci@main` -- a consumer has to
type this repository's address, so it cannot not appear.

A rule a file visibly breaks is worse than no rule: the next person either
"fixes" the examples or stops trusting the section. So the claim now covers
what it should -- consumer-specific things, and any named consumer -- and
calls out this repo's own address as the one deliberate exception, which is
also a useful pointer to the exact lines to edit when the repo moves org.

Found in the cold re-read of #2.

Co-authored-by: bit <bit@das-labor.org>

README.md

@@ -219,10 +219,16 @@ probably change here too, at the same time.
 
 ## Not hard-coded
 
-No `weblib/` (or any other organisation) in a path, URL or workflow
-reference. No bucket name, repo URL, app id, keystore path, or channel name
-or count -- a consumer may have one publish target or several, under
-whatever names it likes; nothing here assumes "release" and "dev", or that
-there are exactly two.
+No bucket name, repo URL, app id, keystore path, or channel name or count --
+a consumer may have one publish target or several, under whatever names it
+likes; nothing here assumes "release" and "dev", or that there are exactly
+two. No consumer is named anywhere either: the repository that runs the
+publish has already changed twice during design, so naming one would be
+wrong again shortly.
+
+The one exception is deliberate and unavoidable: **this repository's own
+address** appears in the `uses:` examples above, because that is what a
+consumer has to type. Those lines are what will need editing if this repo
+moves organisation -- nothing else should.
 
 [weblib-ci]: https://git.chaosbit.de/weblib/weblib-ci