feat(pre-verified): devrel input

[Aaron-Ritter]

This pull request focuses on improving the clarity and consistency of the API documentation, especially around field descriptions, possible values, and terminology. It also adds missing details, corrects minor errors, and enhances guidance for users and developers.

Documentation improvements and clarifications:

• Added explicit lists of possible values for fields such as user.encryptionScheme, user.twoFactor.methods[x].method, form.steps[x].type, form.type, loginIdType, and verificationStrategy across multiple API documentation files to improve clarity and consistency.
• Improved and clarified descriptions for fields, such as specifying that FusionAuth stores email addresses in lowercase and that each must be unique, and refining wording for the user.encryptionScheme and oneTimeCode fields.

Content and terminology corrections:

• Updated terminology to consistently refer to the "FusionAuth admin UI" instead of just "FusionAuth UI" in form-related documentation.
• Fixed minor typos and improved phrasing for better readability, such as "must have already completed verification" and correcting "the value the with the application Id" in code examples.

Tutorials and guidance enhancements:

• Added notes and links to relevant tutorials for identity verification workflows, including pre-verification using email and phone, and improved formatting of tutorial lists for better visibility.
• Clarified the distinction between the Identity Verification API and the Verify Email API, and improved the explanation of when each should be used.

Formatting and consistency:

• Standardized list formatting (switching from - to *) for tutorial links and possible values in API field descriptions to maintain consistency throughout the documentation.
• Ensured consistent linking and reference formatting for internal documentation and external resources.

These changes collectively enhance the usability and accuracy of the API documentation, making it easier for developers to understand and implement the APIs correctly.

[Aaron-Ritter]

@wied03 there are some earlier review comments by @nathan-contino which I have not yet implemented.

• feat(identity-verification): sonderformat input #3976 (comment)
• feat(identity-verification): sonderformat input #3976 (comment)

[wied03]

Overall, looking good. Just a few points.

[nathan-contino]

Some minor comments.

[mark-robustelli]

I reviewed the blog post and made some suggestions. I will let @nathan-contino comment on the rest doc updates.

[Aaron-Ritter]

@mark-robustelli @nathan-contino As discussed, I have moved the blog in an own branch so this can be finalized. The review input has been incorporated in the new branch and will be complicated separately.