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 The privacy retention comment was stale, not a defect — superseded by his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 Swept three unpublished insights drafts too, and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/pages/legal/privacy.astro

@@ -44,8 +44,12 @@
  *     record is ever deleted.** Only a record written with a near-future `ttl`
  *     and watched to vanish proves that. docs/05's definition of done carries
  *     "TTL set and verified by test record" and `docs/06`'s cutover checklist
- *     names this page as what that item protects. **Both halves before this page
- *     is public.** See the TODO(pouya) on the retention section below, and §9 Q60.
+ *     names this page as what that item protects. ⚠️ **This read "both halves
+ *     before this page is public" and the page went public first — Pouya's
+ *     ruling of 2026-09-03: publish, then confirm the deletion, reading from
+ *     2026-09-04.** So the second half is now owed rather than pending, which is
+ *     a weaker position and is recorded as one. See the comment on the retention
+ *     section below, and §9 Q60.
  *
  * ⚠️ **NO LICENSURE CLAIM AND NO ANSWER TO THE CAPACITY QUESTION.** A privacy
  * policy is where "legal advice" phrasing arrives by convention. §4 records
@@ -81,7 +85,7 @@ const RETENTION_MONTHS = 24;
 
 /** Bump this on ANY substantive edit. A privacy policy with a stale date is a
  *  policy a reader cannot tell they are reading an old version of. */
-const LAST_UPDATED = '2 September 2026';
+const LAST_UPDATED = '3 September 2026';
 
 /* Rendered from the form's own field list, so the two cannot drift. `consent`
    and the honeypot are absent from `INTAKE_FIELDS` deliberately and are
@@ -226,15 +230,15 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
 
         <h2>How long it is kept</h2>
         {
-          /* TODO(pouya): has a test record been written to the intake table with a
-             near-future `ttl` and OBSERVED TO DISAPPEAR? AGENTS.md §9 Q60. The
-             sentence below asserts a MECHANISM, not just a period, and the
-             setting being on does not prove the mechanism runs. The table
-             setting is confirmed — §7 holds that status and this comment does
-             not restate it, because it did restate it once and went stale within
-             the day (§12 R19). Do not answer this from the handler code, which
-             only writes the attribute. This page must not go public until a
-             deletion has actually been seen. */
+          /* The sentence below asserts a MECHANISM, not just a period, and the
+             mechanism is still unobserved — AGENTS.md §9 Q60, open. **Pouya
+             ruled 2026-09-03 that the page publishes now and the deletion is
+             confirmed after launch**; the observation window opened 2026-09-02
+             and the earliest useful reading is 2026-09-04 (`docs/09` Part 10).
+             That decision is why this is no longer a `TODO(pouya)`. The table
+             setting lives in §7 and is deliberately not restated here — it was
+             once, and went stale within the day (§12 R19). Do not answer Q60
+             from the handler code, which only writes the attribute. */
         }
         <p>
           <strong>{RETENTION_MONTHS} months from the date you send it</strong>,
@@ -307,15 +311,18 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
               {ANALYTICS.provider === 'plausible' ? 'Plausible' : 'Fathom'},
               which is cookieless and collects no personal information and no
               cross-site identifiers. There is nothing to consent to and no
-              banner, because nothing is stored on your device.
+              banner, because it sets no cookies and stores no identifier on
+              your device.
             </p>
           ) : (
             <p>
               <strong>This site sets no cookies and runs no analytics.</strong>
-              There is no tracking script on any page, nothing is stored on your
-              device, and there is therefore nothing to consent to and no
-              banner. If that changes, this page changes on the same day and its
-              last updated date moves with it.
+              There is no tracking script on any page, and there is therefore
+              nothing to consent to and no banner. If cookies or analytics are
+              ever introduced, this page changes on the same day and its last
+              updated date moves with it. Your browser does cache this site's
+              fonts, stylesheets and images for up to a year so a return visit
+              loads faster, and those are the same files for every visitor.
             </p>
           )
         }