feat: build step 6 — /process/ and /for-parties/, the first step under D20
Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s
Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s
Two pages, 14 in dist/ (was 12), zero JavaScript, one <h1> each, no skipped heading levels. Both were dangling links in SECONDARY_NAV since step 1; the footer is now whole on every page. /process/ — the five steps from intake to minutes of settlement or an award, with PROCESS_FRAMING rendered adjacent to the timings rather than in a section lede above them, which is the condition Q43 attached to publishing them at all. Conflicts says WHEN the check runs and WHAT it needs, and then stops: any sentence naming the outcome would be a seventh conduct undertaking, and §4's gate requires that Pouya has made it in terms. Logged as Q57. /for-parties/ — second person, grade 9, for a party arriving without counsel. NEUTRAL_ROLE_LINE gets its own section above the FAQ rather than a slot in it. Eight questions in one array feeding both the visible page and the FAQPage node, so a question cannot reach the structured data without appearing on the page. The word "lawyer" appears nowhere, deliberately, and the reason is in the file header. Three defects worth recording. The link colour on a dark band measured 1.88:1, and 1.10:1 on hover. `--link` is documented at 8.95:1 ON CREAM and was never overridden for an inverse ground; SiteFooter sets its own colour, which is the only reason this had not fired before — /process/ shipped the site's first body link on a dark band. That is worse than the gold-on-cream 2.10:1 this project treats as canonical. Fixed in global.css, where the next inverse-ground link will hit the same hole. The `:not(.btn)` guard is load-bearing, not tidiness: the new rule's specificity (0,2,1) beats `.btn-gold`'s (0,2,0), so without it the repair would have recoloured every gold button on a dark band. The fee shipped as "with preparation included", which docs/07 forbids in terms: the allowance is CAPPED, so the unqualified form sells an uncapped one, and /mediation/ already promises the site does the opposite. `prepIncluded` had been declared in site.ts with no consumer anywhere. /process/ §Confidentiality asserted that confidentiality is settled in the terms of appointment — a claim about Pouya's engagement documents that §4 does not row and no reader can check. Replaced with ADRIC's Code of Ethics quoted from the committed extract, plus the §4-verified membership rendered from MEMBERSHIP_ORGS. The replacement then said "on this it is one sentence", a completeness claim about a third party's Code that the extract cannot support — the same file records a separate instrument eighteen lines above. The cited source supplied its own counter-example. check:claims failed the build on compliant copy: five uses of "lawyer" about the READER, which §4 permits since it bars the word used OF Pouya. There is no allowlist, and the freeze bars narrowing the pattern, so the copy moved — the same call and the same direction as "my client" to "our client" on /med-arb/. Both replacements are better than what they replaced. Q58 opened rather than guessed: docs/07 reads "up to 3.5 h, INCLUDING 2 h preparation", which makes 3.5 the billed envelope and the room time 1.5 h, against which 3.5 and 7 being exactly 2x makes no sense. A draft had answered "What happens on the day?" with "about 3.5 hours" — the envelope presented as the day, to the reader least able to check it. The sentence was removed. Two review rounds, 16 findings, all applied. Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0, build 0 (14 pages), check:claims 0, npm audit 0, minifier tripwire clean. Lighthouse not run — tool unavailable until build step 7. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Claude Opus 5
parent
2ea4c0f8ac
commit
13b97841b9
@@ -548,8 +548,15 @@ are shared between parties; payment terms. A real page with real numbers, or a
|
||||
**Job:** serve the self-represented tier without diluting the counsel-facing
|
||||
pages. Plain language, short sentences, no jargon.
|
||||
|
||||
What mediation is · what it is not · who the mediator is and is not (not your
|
||||
lawyer, not a judge) · what happens on the day · what it costs · what happens if
|
||||
What mediation is · what it is not · who the mediator is and is not —
|
||||
**render `NEUTRAL_ROLE_LINE`, and read `docs/03` §For parties before writing a
|
||||
word of it.** ⚠️ **THIS LINE READ *"(not your lawyer, not a judge)"* UNTIL
|
||||
2026-08-30 AND IT INSTRUCTED A FORM STRUCK ON 2026-08-28.** *"Not your lawyer"*
|
||||
**presupposes lawyer status**, which §4 Forbidden bars and D13 treats as hard as
|
||||
assertion — a negation still carries the presupposition. `docs/03` struck it
|
||||
with that reasoning two days earlier and the sweep never reached this file;
|
||||
build step 6 is the step that consumes this line, and it was found here by
|
||||
`adversarial-reviewer` while the page itself avoided the trap · what happens on the day · what it costs · what happens if
|
||||
you do not settle · how to prepare.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/insights/` and `/insights/[slug]/`
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user