feat: eyebrow 14px and one small-text floor; fix a site-wide reflow defect; stamp TTL; §4 bars the struck universal

Pouya's five rulings of 2026-08-31, after 64bce10. One commit, because AGENTS.md
entry (aj) covers all five and the review fixes interleave across them —
recorded here rather than left to be inferred.

1. THE EYEBROW, 13 -> 14px, at the one token definition. `--text-eyebrow` is
deliberately NOT an alias of `--text-sm` despite sharing its value: the two move
for different reasons, and aliasing would mean a change to body-meta type
silently moving every eyebrow. Sweep by rendering, 22 pages x 2 widths, 801 mono
instances: 441 carry `.eyebrow`, 420 now at 14px, 21 held at 11px. Zero of 801
below 4.5:1.

Header check, which Pouya asked for explicitly: nothing header-side consumes the
token, `--header-h` is 81px, and the sticky header measures exactly 81.00px at
every width from 66rem up with the CTA on `.header-inner`'s content edge. Nothing
overflowed, so nothing was improvised.

2. /contact/'s LABELS RAISED, AND THE FLOOR CLAIM REWRITTEN BECAUSE THE RULING'S
PREMISE WAS FALSE. The ruling asked docs/02 to record the tagline as "the ONLY
sub-14px text on the site". It is not: the `--text-xs` 12px rung has ten
declaration sites and 130 elements rendering at 12px. So docs/02 records the
claim that IS verified — `--text-2xs` has one consumer in the repository — and
enumerates the 12px rung as a separate treatment. Writing a false claim into the
spec because the conclusion was handed down is the move the rules forbid.

A third block moved that the ruling did not name: /bio/'s ten <h2>s and its strap
were copies of five of `.eyebrow`'s six declarations at 11px — the same escape the
footer headings were. docs/02 justified holding them by the one-page PDF
constraint; measured, `@media print` sets both to 7pt, so the screen size never
reached the PDF and that was never the reason.

Consolidating them DID change the printed sheet, because the missing sixth
declaration was `font-weight`: 500 grew the PDF 89,496 -> 91,151 bytes. Print
therefore freezes 400, the committed PDF stays byte-identical (10 differing
bytes, all /CreationDate and /ModDate), and unifying is Pouya's call.

3. THE REFLOW DEFECT WAS SITE-WIDE AND /bio/ WAS NOT THE BINDING CAUSE.
`white-space: nowrap` on `SiteHeader .brand-name` held all 22 pages 63px over at
320px/root 32. Eight cause-specific fixes, no `overflow-x` anywhere; all eight
produce byte-identical geometry at root 16. `Pill` is marked in docs/02 as the
backstop it is — the real cause was `PracticeCard`'s rem-based padding, and with
it clamped "Construction" goes from 94x220 in six two-character lines to 158x85 in
two.

Three instrument findings now in docs/02, each of which hid a real defect:
`break-word` does not reduce min-content and `anywhere` does;
`getBoundingClientRect()` reports border boxes, so an element sweep cannot see
text spilling outside its own box; and `mobile: true` emulation expands the
layout viewport, so `scrollWidth - innerWidth` reads 0 while the reader still
scrolls sideways.

4. TTL STAMPED `ENABLED` in §7, with `DISABLED` at first verification recorded
rather than overwritten. Q60 narrowed to its second half and OPEN: no record has
been watched to vanish, and `ENABLED` proves the setting, not the behaviour.
R19's sweep found three stale copies outside §7; all now defer to it. R19 itself
was not edited — it points at §7 rather than carrying state, which is the
property that made it work.

5. §4 GAINS THE STRUCK-UNIVERSAL ROW, citing the committed ontario.ca extract and
cross-referenced to `check:claims`'s `struck-universal-q39`. It bars the claim in
BOTH directions: the commercial half is Pouya's attributed position, not a
verified fact. The row immediately caught two places asserting it flatly —
`SiteHeader.astro` and §9 Q33 — both now attributed. `check:claims` unmodified;
still frozen.

REVIEW: adversarial-reviewer, two rounds, 16 findings, ALL ACCEPTED, NONE
DECLINED. claims-auditor did not run (D20). Eight of round 2's ten were defects
in round 1's own fixes.

Round 1's blocking finding was a defect in my own record: I wrote that every
reflow residual was zero at "root 16 and root 32, 286 measurements". Two ways of
simulating 200% text are NOT equivalent, because media-query `rem` resolves
against the DEFAULT font size, not the root element's. Under the method docs/02
itself prescribes the site is 944px over on 21 pages and 508px on / at 1280, and
304px at 1920 — nav clipped mid-word, Practice/Fees/Contact and the CTA
off-screen, WCAG 1.4.4 with loss of functionality. My 286 excluded exactly the
widths where the defect lives.

NOT FIXED, DELIBERATELY: the cause is `flex-wrap: nowrap` on `.nav-list` above
66rem, a locked step-1 decision, and the standing instruction is to stop and
report rather than improvise a header change. It is now a blocking item on
docs/06's cutover checklist, ticked only by ruling on it — "not by re-measuring
it with the method that reports zero".

Round 2 also caught: a 63,743-byte figure that was the `cmp -l` differing-byte
count rather than the 1,655-byte size delta; a lost-navigation list naming
Med-Arb, which is not in the masthead at any width, while omitting Contact; the
tagline's justification left recorded at 13px, where one clause of it is false at
14px (20px of document overflow at 1216 with a seventh nav item); my own label
raise reintroducing a 38px element overflow at the width just ruled on; two
copies of the eyebrow treatment left at weight 400; three stale residual tables;
and the min-content explanation duplicated six times in src/.

VERIFIED, exit statuses read directly, never through a pipe: build 0 (22 pages),
check 0 (0 errors/0 warnings/0 hints), check:claims 0, og:proof 0, check:intake 0,
lint 0, minifier tripwire clean, TODO in dist 0 with a source sanity check.
Overflow: 374 measurements over 22 pages, every one zero, row counts asserted
before reading, with positive controls (119px at width 200, 319px at root 64).
Lighthouse 0, run three times with identical category scores: perf 99 on / and
100 elsewhere, a11y 100, best practices 100, SEO 100 on all indexable pages,
CLS 0.000. / sits at LCP 2.03s against a 2.0s budget, unchanged by this work.

The zsh `$VAR` word-split trap fired twice more and both times read as a clean
pass; caught only by asserting row counts first. Two of my own instruments were
wrong before they were right: a `grep -F '0.875rem'` state check that could never
match because Lightning CSS writes `.875rem`, and a probe whose inline
`!important` was outranked by a running CSS transition.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5

src/pages/legal/privacy.astro

@@ -27,23 +27,25 @@
  *
  * ⚠️ **WHAT THIS PAGE DELIBERATELY DOES NOT CLAIM, AND THE OMISSIONS ARE THE
  * POINT.** docs/05 specifies a customer-managed KMS key, point-in-time recovery,
- * and DynamoDB TTL. `AGENTS.md` §7 verifies the table's name and region and
- * **does not verify any of those three as enabled**. So:
+ * and DynamoDB TTL. `AGENTS.md` §7 is the register for whether each of the three
+ * is enabled, and **this comment does not restate what it says** — it did once,
+ * went stale within the day, and had to be pulled back (§12 R19). So:
  *
  *   - "Encrypted at rest" IS stated, because DynamoDB encrypts every table at
  *     rest unconditionally — it is true whether or not the customer-managed key
  *     in docs/05 has been configured.
  *   - The customer-managed key and point-in-time recovery are NOT mentioned.
  *     Neither is a fact a reader needs, and neither is verified.
- *   - **Automatic deletion IS stated, and it is the one promise on this page
- *     that depends on a control nobody has verified.** The handler writes the
- *     `ttl` attribute, and ⚠️ **writing the attribute is not the mechanism** —
- *     TTL must be ENABLED on the table, and **§7 records whether it is.**
- *     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 is protecting. **Both halves — `ENABLED` by command, and a test
- *     record confirmed deleted — before this page is public.** See the
- *     TODO(pouya) on the retention section below, and §9 Q60.
+ *   - **Automatic deletion IS stated, and it asserts a MECHANISM rather than only
+ *     a period** — the one promise here whose truth lives entirely outside this
+ *     repository. The handler writes the `ttl` attribute, and ⚠️ **writing the
+ *     attribute is not the mechanism**: TTL must also be enabled on the table,
+ *     which §7 records — **and the setting being on still does not prove a
+ *     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.
  *
  * ⚠️ **NO LICENSURE CLAIM AND NO ANSWER TO THE CAPACITY QUESTION.** A privacy
  * policy is where "legal advice" phrasing arrives by convention. §4 records
@@ -209,13 +211,15 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
 
         <h2>How long it is kept</h2>
         {
-          /* TODO(pouya): is DynamoDB TTL `ENABLED` on the intake table, and has a
-             test record been written with a near-future `ttl` and observed to
-             disappear? AGENTS.md §9 Q60. The sentence below asserts a mechanism,
-             not just a period — `describe-time-to-live` returned `DISABLED` on
-             2026-08-31 — and it must not go public until both halves are
-             confirmed. §7 records the status; do not answer this from the
-             handler code, which only writes the attribute. */
+          /* 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. */
         }
         <p>
           <strong>{RETENTION_MONTHS} months from the date you send it</strong>,