docs(salesforce): document PSG grant model for CXP-288

[carolinaroncaglia]

Summary

• Documents the two new grant types introduced in CXP-288 (PSG → User grants via PermissionSetAssignment, PSG → Permission Set grants via PermissionSetGroupComponent)
• Explains transitive access expansion behavior via GrantExpandable annotation
• Adds a note clarifying that PSG grants require PermissionSetAssignment records targeting a PSG

Related

• Linear: https://linear.app/ductone/issue/CXP-288
• PR: cxp-288 add psg user grants #105

[linear]

CXP-288 Salesforce: Sync Permission Set Group → User and Permission Set Group → Permission Set mappings

[github-actions]

Claude finished @carolinaroncaglia's task in 1m 35s —— View job

---

PR Review: docs(salesforce): document PSG grant model for CXP-288

• Gather context and read changed files
• Verify documentation against connector implementation
• Review documentation changes
• Post review feedback

---

Looks good! I verified all four claims in this documentation against the actual connector code:

Claim	Status	Source
PSG → User grants emitted as member	Verified	pkg/connector/permission_set_group.go:16, 84-112
PSG → Permission Set grants emitted as assigned	Verified	pkg/connector/permissions.go:19, 126-157
PSG is the principal in PSG → PS grants	Verified	pkg/connector/permissions.go:146-156
GrantExpandable annotation for transitive expansion	Verified	pkg/connector/permissions.go:153-156 + test at permissions_test.go:56-59

The Salesforce API object names (PermissionSetAssignment, PermissionSetGroupComponent) also match the client queries in pkg/connector/client/salesforce.go.

Minor observations (non-blocking)

1. Placement: The new section sits between an asterisk footnote (*You have the option to sync... at line 37) and the "Connector actions" heading. This is a reasonable spot — it's within the Capabilities area. Just noting that the asterisk footnote on line 37 isn't closed (pre-existing, not introduced by this PR).

2. Line length: Lines 43 and 45 are quite long (~200+ chars). This is fine for rendered MDX but could be harder to review in diffs. Totally optional to wrap — just mentioning it.

No bugs, no inaccuracies, no missing information. This is a clean, accurate documentation addition. Approve.