feat: support fundraise record_type alongside decision_market

LLM now classifies proposals as either decision_market (governance votes)
or fundraise (ICO/launch capital raises). Both handled by same extractor.

Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>

extract-decisions.py

@@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ Given this proposal source, produce a JSON object with these fields:
 - "proposer": Who proposed it (name or handle)
 - "proposal_date": ISO date when created
 - "resolution_date": ISO date when resolved (null if active)
+- "record_type": One of: "decision_market" (governance proposals voted on via futarchy) or "fundraise" (ICO/launch raising capital through MetaDAO or Futardio)
 - "category": One of: treasury, hiring, product, governance, fundraise, incentives, migration, other
 - "summary": 1-2 sentence summary of what this proposal does and why it matters. Be specific — include dollar amounts, key parameters, and outcomes.
 - "significance": 2-3 paragraphs analyzing why this proposal matters for the futarchy ecosystem. What does it prove or test? What precedent does it set? How does it relate to broader governance patterns?
@@ -234,9 +235,10 @@ def build_decision_record(source_path: Path, dry_run: bool = False) -> Path | No
                 market_lines.append(line_stripped)
 
     # Build frontmatter
+    record_type = analysis.get("record_type", "decision_market")
     record_fm = {
         "type": "decision",
-        "entity_type": "decision_market",
+        "entity_type": record_type,
         "name": analysis.get("name", title),
         "domain": domain,
         "status": analysis.get("status", "unknown"),