1.13 Prioritize RBL in sighting documentation while keeping other primates lighter-weight

[Shamanbenny]

Summary

Adjust the sighting flow so RBL documentation is treated as the primary reporting path, while long-tailed macaque and dusky langur reporting can remain lighter-weight.

Current state in this repo

• The volunteer sighting form currently presents RBL, LTM, DUSKY, and OTHER as equal first-class species options: app/(app)/report/[walkId]/edit/observation-form-client.tsx#L58-L63
• The data model also treats those species uniformly through the same enum: lib/types/database.ts#L476-L479
• Map and analytics views likewise treat all species as regular tracked categories, even though RBL is visually highlighted in some summaries: lib/constants/species.ts#L1-L28

Gap

The repo currently supports all configured primate species with the same reporting depth. It does not yet encode a product distinction where RBL is the priority and other species require less detailed handling.

Proposed implementation

• Clarify what “priority” means operationally: UI ordering, stronger required fields for RBL, simplified entry for non-RBL, or downstream analytics emphasis.
• The least disruptive first step is to reorder and annotate the volunteer sighting UI so RBL is the primary path.
• If needed later, add conditional validation so non-RBL sightings can be submitted with fewer required fields than RBL sightings.

Concerns

• This requirement is not concrete enough yet to decide whether the change is only UX-level or should affect schema, validation, exports, and analytics.
• We should avoid making non-RBL data too weak if the team still needs it for ecological context.