Add constraint to report positive requirements

[aj-stein-gsa]

User Story:

As a Metaschema developer, I want to be able to write constraints that I must not counterintuitively invert the test or target for the equivalent inverse matches/expect constraint, so I Metaschema syntax to allow a report assembly (in constraint or elsewhere in the Metaschema model) to more clearly support analysis of data elements to provide software users information.

Goals:

• Semantically distinguish reporting from defining constraints that are errors
• Syntactically support an "inverse" test for reporting that works by requiring evaluation to equal true(), not false()

Dependencies:

N/A

Acceptance Criteria

• All website and readme documentation affected by the changes in this issue have been updated. Changes to the website can be made in the docs/content directory of your branch.
• A Pull Request (PR) is submitted that fully addresses the goals of this User Story. This issue is referenced in the PR.
• The CI-CD build process runs without any reported errors on the PR. This can be confirmed by reviewing that all checks have passed in the PR.

{The items above are general acceptance criteria for all User Stories. Please describe anything else that must be completed for this issue to be considered resolved.}

[aj-stein-gsa]

Discussion from a meeting with maintainers:

• So only difference is really the semantics of the @test in a constraint? Yes.
• Should we have this but maybe not call it report, but inform? Most likely, AJ agrees.
• It should have some @level just like other constraints, only inverse semantics @test? Yes, this approach definitely makes sense.

[david-waltermire]

@aj-stein-gsa Would you please create a PR suggesting the changes you describe above for others to review?