We were putting conformance requirements on the representative of the
equivalence class, rather than directly on the potential archetype on
which the conformance requirement was specified. This violates the
invariant used when forming protocol-requirement sources that we never
reseat a requirement onto the representative (which would
have become a problem when implementing recursive protocol
constreaints) as well as masking a GSB idempotency issue that comes
from same-type requirements where the right-hand side was not
guaranteed to refer to the archetype anchor *within* that subcomponent.
