docs: align tool inventory with what actually runs (no Grype, no ZAP/nuclei) (#233)

docs/features/control-mapping.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Control mapping connects the scanner's raw output — deterministic tool finding
 
 The design has one rule, borrowed from the ZeroFalse / IRIS line of research: **deterministic tools are the detectors; the LLM is only ever a grounded false-positive filter, never the thing that finds the issue.**
 
-- A tool (semgrep, gitleaks, syft/osv, ZAP, nuclei) detects deterministically.
+- A tool (semgrep, gitleaks, syft/osv, the PLC linter; the DAST agents today, with **Nuclei and ZAP planned** as deterministic web/OT detectors underneath them — see [Tools & Scanners](/reference/tools#planned-integrations-decided-2026-08-31-not-yet-in-the-code)) detects.
 - An **authored, human-reviewed lookup table** (`control-map`) maps that detection to the control(s) it's evidence for.
 - The LLM enters last, to *confirm or refute* the mapping against the actual code — and every surviving verdict is anchored to a verbatim snippet by the grounding gate.
 
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ At scale, the **master-controls** corpus (breakpilot's deduped clusters, exporte
 
 ```mermaid
 flowchart TD
-    T[Deterministic tools\nsemgrep · gitleaks · syft/osv · ZAP] --> F[Findings]
+    T[Deterministic tools\nsemgrep · gitleaks · syft/osv · DAST · PLC linter] --> F[Findings]
     F --> B["Stage 5b — LUT triage\ncontrols_for(tool, cwe / rule_id)"]
     F --> C["Stage 5c — Semantic\nembed region+intent → top-K master controls"]
     R[Repo source] --> D["Stage 5d — Grounded surface\nretrieve surface for absence-based controls"]

docs/features/dast.md

@@ -92,3 +92,7 @@ Filters can be combined. A count indicator shows how many findings match the cur
 ::: tip
 Findings marked as **Confirmed** exploitable were verified with a successful attack payload. **Unconfirmed** findings show suspicious behavior that may indicate a vulnerability but could not be fully exploited.
 :::
+
+## Deterministic detectors (planned)
+
+The DAST engine above is agentic: an LLM drives crawler, browser and testing tools and decides what to try next. That gives depth and code-aware exploitation, but not run-to-run reproducibility. The next step (decided 2026-08-31, not yet implemented) adds two deterministic open-source detectors **under** the agents: **Nuclei** (template checks incl. ICS/OT and default-credential templates) first, then an **OWASP ZAP** baseline scan. Their findings will appear alongside agent findings, carry CWE + compliance `control_refs`, and seed the agent's context so it verifies and chains instead of rediscovering. See [Tools & Scanners](/reference/tools#planned-integrations-decided-2026-08-31-not-yet-in-the-code).