fix: refute (ar)'s intake finding; fix the D20 gloss class; add X-Robots-Tag on *.pdf

Pouya's rulings of 2026-09-03, in five parts.

1. THE INTAKE FORM IS NOT BROKEN. (ar) was wrong. docs/09 §7.1 verbatim —
POST /api/intake with an Origin header — returns 303 to /contact/could-not-send/
with access-control-allow-origin echoed; the same probe without Origin returns
403. A bare POST 403s BY DESIGN and §7.1 says so three lines below the probe it
prescribes: "403 means the Origin header did not arrive". The earlier finding
read a status code without reading the document that defines it. Second time in
two days. CLAUDE.md's instrument list goes eight to nine. D20 findings 12 and 19
fall with it; §7.2 (that both emails arrive) is still owed.

The correction is APPENDED as entry (as); (ar) stands unedited.

2. The privacy retention comment was stale, not a defect — superseded by his
decision to publish and confirm after launch, reading from 2026-09-04. Reworded;
the TODO(pouya) came off with the gate it enforced. The mechanism finding
survives: it was a JSX comment, stripped by Astro, so no build or deploy path
could see it. A publication gate that lives only in a stripped comment is not a
gate. §9 Q60 corrected.

3. The gloss class is fixed — 15 of the 20 D20 findings, 14 distinct edits across
9 files, under the rule "the gloss may say no more than the extract says; no new
claims, no new sources". Swept three unpublished insights drafts too, and
corrected the wrong CAA attribution at its source in docs/reference/, which is
where a fixed page re-seeds. /bio/ changed, so the committed PDF is regenerated
(89,549 B, 1 page asserted). Three findings outstanding: 10 needs a ruling, 11 is
ruled and owed via Q60, 13 needs him to have said it. R1 is not one of the twenty.

4. X-Robots-Tag cannot be done with S3 object metadata — --metadata writes user
metadata, returned as x-amz-meta-x-robots-tag, which no crawler reads. Built as
the CloudFront response-headers policy docs/06 has specified all along:
configure.mjs section 4. It needs a --apply run, not a deploy. The policy is
cloned from whatever is attached at run time and reconciled on every run, because
a response-headers policy replaces rather than merges.

5. Headshot deferred as an open non-defect. The master and the srcset ladder are
both fine; Astro passes no quality, so AVIF encodes at sharp's default 50 and is
served first.

Two review rounds, 29 findings, all resolved, none declined; stopped at two per
D19. NINE of round 2's fourteen were defects in round 1's own repairs — including
a fix that harmonised both /fees/ rows onto wording that was itself unregistered,
publishing an unsourced fee term twice where it had been once.

Gates, exit status read for each: check 0 (0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 hints),
build 0 (23 pages), check:claims 0, check:intake 0, og:proof 0, lint 0, minifier
grep exit 1, router.test.mjs 30/30. Lighthouse NOT run. Nothing deployed and
nothing applied to the distribution.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5

src/content/insights/what-a-system-impact-assessment-evaluates.mdx

@@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ or modifications to facilities connected to a transmitter's system are subject
 to the IESO's system impact assessment (SIA) and the transmitter's customer
 impact assessment (CIA)." Two documents, two authors. The IESO conducts the SIA.
 The transmitter conducts the CIA. Treating the pair as one exhibit loses the
-distinction most of these disputes turn on. The umbrella name is the connection
-assessment and approval process, CAA in the IESO's usage, and each application
-is given a unique CAA ID.
+distinction most of these disputes turn on. Both sit in the IESO's and
+transmitter's connection assessment and approval process, CAA in the IESO's
+usage, and each application is given a unique CAA ID.
 
 ## What the assessment is actually of