docs(partner-sdk): pages contradict each other on which fields accept -1 for unlimited

[yacinekahlerras-turbodocx]

Summary

The partner SDK reference pages disagree with each other about which numeric entitlement fields
accept -1 as an "unlimited" sentinel. A reader following one page gets a different mental model
than a reader following another.

The contradiction

docs/SDKs/partner-go.md:693 states it exclusively:

Every counter except CurrentAICredits floors at 0. Only CurrentAICredits accepts -1, meaning unlimited.

But docs/SDKs/partner-javascript.md:617 and docs/SDKs/partner-python.md:605 both document
a second field as accepting it:

maxUsers | number | Maximum users allowed (-1 = unlimited)

Both cannot be right. Testing against a live API confirms the Go page is the inaccurate one — at least
one field besides CurrentAICredits accepts -1 and returns 200.

The gap

Separately, no page states which numeric fields reject -1. maxStorage is documented only as:

maxStorage | number | Maximum storage in bytes

That line is not wrong, and no example tells a reader to send maxStorage: -1 — so nothing published
is actively broken. But given that neighbouring fields in the same table are annotated
(-1 = unlimited), a reader can reasonably infer the sentinel is universal across the numeric
entitlements. It is not: sending -1 for storage fails.

Suggested fix

Make the unlimited-sentinel rule explicit and consistent across all six partner SDK pages
(partner-{javascript,python,go,php,java,ruby}.md):

• State per-field, in the entitlements table, whether -1 is accepted — rather than annotating
  some fields and leaving others ambiguous.
• Correct the blanket claim in partner-go.md:693.
• Explicitly note the fields where -1 is not valid, so the omission reads as deliberate
  rather than as an oversight.

Happy to supply the verified per-field matrix once the API side confirms the intended semantics —
there's a corresponding API-side issue open to pin those down.