Currently, when the user attempts to create a delivery operation for a class X document type, the system prompts the user to provide values for the CAI and CAI Expiration Date fields.

## Steps to produce:
- Install `l10n_ar_stock` with demo data
- Switch Company to `(AR) Exento`
- Create a warehouse
- Configuration > Operation Types > Delivery Orders
- Set Document Type to `'(94) MAILING X' `and try to save

## Observed Behavior:
The fields 'CAI' and 'CAI Expiration Date', which represent the authorization code and expiration date issued by the government, are currently configured as required fields.

**Expected Behavior:**
As specified on the [government site](https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/resoluci%C3%B3n-1415-2003-81316/actualizacion#:~:text=Los%20datos%20indicados%20en%20el%20inciso%20a%29%2C%20puntos%207%2C%2010%2C%2011%2C%2012%20y%2013%2C%20s%C3%B3lo%20ser%C3%A1n%20para%20los%20remitos%20clase%20%27R%27%2E):

> 
> 12. Printing authorization code, preceded by the acronym 'CAI No. ...'.
> 13. Expiration date of the receipt, preceded by the legend 'Expiration Date ...'
> 
> 'The data indicated in section a), points 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13, will only be for 'R' class delivery notes.'

These statements indicate that the information mentioned in points 12 and 13, including the **CAI** and **CAI Expiration Date** fields, is applicable only to **'R'** class delivery notes. Therefore, for class X delivery notes, these fields should be optional rather than required.

## Root Cause:
According to [1], the field is configured as a required field when a Document Type ID is selected. This configuration causes the **CAI** and **CAI Expiration Date** fields to become mandatory, regardless of the document type requirements defined by the government specification.

[1]-
https://github.com/odoo/odoo/blob/62b05c4ea61942072b6b1fb420fe3efedb11ed14/addons/l10n_ar_stock/views/stock_picking_type_views.xml#L11-L16

## Solution:
Apply constraints that align with the government specifications, allowing the CAI and CAI Expiration Date fields to remain optional for document types where they are not required.

opw-6359503

## Description

When a CI/NIE number fails the check digit validation, the raised error suggests `3:402.010-2 or 93:402.010-1 (CI or NIE)` as the expected format. This is misleading for two reasons:

- The colon notation comes from Uruware's technical manual and is not how identity card numbers are written in Uruguay: users write `3.402.010-1` or plain digits (`34020101`). Real users facing the error keep reformatting a number whose check digit is simply wrong, believing the problem is the format.
- The CI example shown is itself an **invalid** number: the check digit of `3.402.010` is `1`, not `2` — the module's own test suite (`l10n_uy/tests/test_check_vat.py`) uses `3:402.010-2` as an invalid sample.

This was reported by an Uruguayan eCommerce user who lost sales because buyers interpreted the message as requiring an unusual format that does not exist in Uruguay.

## Change

Replace the examples with valid numbers written in the notations actually used in Uruguay, and clarify that separators are optional — which is exactly what `_l10n_uy_ci_nie_is_valid()` already accepts (it strips `:. ,-` before checking the verification digit):

```
3.402.010-1 or 34020101 (CI), 93.402.010-1 (NIE); dots and dash are optional
```

Only the `expected_format` string changes; the validation logic is untouched. Existing tests only assert the fixed part of the message (`The CI/NIE number.*does not seem to be valid`), so they are unaffected.

Forward-Port-Of: odoo/odoo#282489