docs(worker): record live item-handle-reuse probe for ack writer

Add the Skip-gated ItemHandleReuseProbeTests probe and its windev result
(2026-10-20): within one MXAccess registration, item handles increase
monotonically and are never reused across remove/re-add, so the ack
writer's Unconfirmed drop-and-re-add mitigation holds and no per-handle
generation counter is needed. Numbering restarts only on a new
registration, which teardown already isolates. Document the guarantee at
the Dirty re-add and in AlarmProbeFindings.md.

Fixes #166

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016J6isfcgqy4SB2RK3ZvFvT

docs/AlarmProbeFindings.md

@@ -515,3 +515,32 @@ returns gRPC `InvalidArgument`.
 The GUID arm of the ack command was not driven live. The public alarm RPCs expose only
 the full reference, so clients reach the by-name arm; worker unit tests cover the GUID
 arm.
+
+## Item handle reuse
+
+`AlarmAckWriter` correlates an ack with its `OnWriteComplete` by the
+(server handle, item handle) pair, because the callback carries no per-write id.
+After an unconfirmed ack it drops the `AckMsg` item and re-adds it so the next
+ack waits on a new handle that a late completion for the old one cannot match.
+That only works if MXAccess does not hand the same number out again.
+
+`ItemHandleReuseProbeTests` (Skip-gated, worker tests) checked this on windev
+(`10.100.0.48`, Galaxy `DEV`) on 2026-10-20 against
+`TestMachine_001.TestAlarm001.AckMsg`, without writing:
+
+| Sequence on one registration (server handle 1) | Item handles returned |
+|---|---|
+| `AddItem` + `Advise`, then `UnAdvise` + `RemoveItem`, five times | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
+| `AddItem`, then `RemoveItem`, five times | 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
+| Add and remove `AckMsg`, add `Acked`, add `AckMsg` again | 11, then 12 (`Acked`), 13 |
+| Add `AckMsg` twice while both are held | 14, 15 |
+
+Within a registration the numbers increase and a freed number is never reused,
+so the drop-and-re-add mitigation holds. Numbering is per registration:
+`Unregister` + `Register` on the same COM object returned server handle 2 and
+item handle 1, and a new `LMXProxyServerClass` returned server handle 1 and
+item handle 1 again. The writer is not exposed to that restart because its
+teardown detaches its `OnWriteComplete` handler from the old COM object and
+clears that server handle's completion entries before it creates a new one.
+No per-handle generation counter is needed.
+