docs(ofrep): point at Appendix F for the CI-exclusion reasoning

Appendix F now carries "Running the suite in CI", promoted there because the
same reasoning restated in four adoption READMEs is where it drifted. So this
section keeps the mechanism and the local record -- that this module had no
testExclusions at all until it was added, which is the appendix's
"exclusion nobody wrote down" -- and links to the appendix for the argument
rather than paraphrasing it.

Also states that no profile in this module touches the property, resolved rather
than read:

  mvn -Pe2e -pl providers/ofrep help:evaluate -Dexpression=testExclusions
      -> **/e2e/*.java
  mvn       -pl providers/ofrep help:evaluate -Dexpression=testExclusions
      -> **/e2e/*.java

Unlike providers/flagd, which needs an e2e profile for its legacy suites and
therefore narrows the pattern instead of clearing it.

Signed-off-by: Simon Schrottner <simon.schrottner@flagsmith.com>

Author: aepfli

providers/ofrep/README.md

@@ -89,8 +89,20 @@ speaks it. The suite reuses the unmodified `flagd-testbed` image and its launchp
 repository's convention for a Docker-dependent suite, fed to Surefire by the parent POM; the parent
 defines no default, so each module that wants the gate declares it. This module did not, which meant
 `mvn verify` started a Compose stack and the suite ran — and failed — in every job that touched
-`providers/ofrep`. The exclusion is the fix, and this paragraph is the other half of it: an
-exclusion nobody writes down is indistinguishable from an oversight.
+`providers/ofrep`. That is the second of the two mistakes
+[Appendix F: Running the suite in CI](https://github.com/open-feature/spec/blob/main/specification/appendix-f-provider-conformance.md#running-the-suite-in-ci)
+names, and the appendix has the reasoning for the whole policy; the exclusion is the fix and this
+paragraph is the other half of it.
+
+This module has no profile that touches the property, so both spellings resolve the same way —
+checked rather than read, because that is the appendix's other warning:
+
+```bash
+mvn -Pe2e -pl providers/ofrep help:evaluate -Dexpression=testExclusions -DforceStdout
+```
+
+The exclusion is Surefire's and not the compiler's, so the suite still builds against the harness in
+every job.
 
 The consequence is that **no CI job runs the suite**, so a maintainer runs it by hand before merging
 a change to the provider's resolution or error behaviour, and quotes the result in the pull request.