chore: project scaffold, specs, and working record

docs/03-content-spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# 03 — Content and voice
+
+Authority: `AGENTS.md` §4 (claim register) and §5 (audience model).
+Source material: `PL_ADR_Personal_Branding_Strategy_Brief.docx` (2026-05-26) and
+`ADR_Site_Content_Brief_for_Claude_Design.md` (2026-05-26).
+
+---
+
+## The one rule
+
+**Every factual claim traces to `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified.** Read the Forbidden
+table before writing any number, statistic, or superlative. If you need a fact
+you do not have, write `TODO(pouya): <exact question>` and log it in §9. Do not
+infer, do not soften, do not carry anything over from the old site.
+
+---
+
+## Voice
+
+**Restrained, precise, and unhedged.** The reader is usually a lawyer. They
+detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
+
+**Do:**
+
+- Short declaratives. "I read the contract and the code." Not "clients benefit
+  from a uniquely multidisciplinary perspective."
+- First person singular. This is a practitioner brand — "I", not "we", not "the
+  practice". The old site's "we" implied a firm that does not exist.
+- Concrete nouns. *Lien claim. Change order. System Impact Assessment. Model
+  card. Minutes of settlement.* Specificity is the credential.
+- Name the limits. "Sole-arbitrator appointments follow the Q.Arb designation;
+  co-arbitration and tribunal-secretary work is available now." Precision about
+  what you cannot yet do makes the rest believable.
+- Plain words over Latin. "Without prejudice" survives because it is a term of
+  art; *inter alia* does not.
+
+**Do not:**
+
+- **Any claim or implication of legal licensure.** D13: the site asserts the JD
+  and nothing more. Never "lawyer", "called to the bar", "licensed", "my law
+  practice", "my litigation practice", "my clients", "acts for", "represents".
+  Implication counts as much as assertion.
+
+  **The approved phrasing is "active litigation exposure" or "involvement in
+  litigation and ADR matters" — never "practice" in that context.** Pouya's
+  wording, 2026-08-26. So: *Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation
+  and ADR boutique, with active exposure to construction, personal injury, POA,
+  and SABS matters.* Accurate, specific, and it claims nothing it should not.
+
+  This framing is **interim** — see `AGENTS.md` §12 R1. Raise it with Pouya
+  rather than letting it settle in by default.
+- Superlatives. No "leading", "premier", "top-rated", "best". LSO marketing rules,
+  and they read as insecure.
+- Outcome language that could be read as a guarantee.
+- "Passionate", "dedicated", "committed", "proven track record", "results-driven",
+  "leverage", "synergy", "solutions".
+- Hedges that erase the claim. The strategy brief warns specifically against
+  softening the technical claim to "technologically literate" — **the claim is
+  engineering practice, so the copy says engineering practice.**
+- Em-dash-heavy rhythm and tricolon padding. One idea per sentence.
+- Second-person sales copy on counsel-facing pages. `/for-parties/` is the one
+  page written to "you".
+
+---
+
+## The core positioning statement
+
+Reused, adapted, across the hero, the About page, and the PDF bio:
+
+> The dispute resolution practice of Pouya Lajevardi — a credentialed neutral
+> who is also a working litigator and a practising machine-learning and
+> infrastructure engineer. Built for commercial, construction, energy,
+> technology, and cross-cultural disputes that turn on facts most neutrals take
+> on faith: the contract, the code, the engineering documents, and the
+> regulatory overlay around them.
+
+Every version of this must survive the §4 check. It does: each element is
+verified.
+
+## Approved headline options
+
+From the content brief; all three sit honestly with the practice.
+
+1. *A mediator who reads the contract, the code, and the room.* — **recommended.**
+   The cleanest one-sentence statement of the moat, and rare because it is rare.
+2. *Engineered for the cases that don't fit a courtroom.*
+3. *Disputes resolved by someone who has been on every side of one.*
+
+## The credential row
+
+Three slots, never counts:
+
+| Slot | Value | Label |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 | **Q.Med** | ADRIC / ADRIO designation |
+| 2 | **JD + ML** | Law and engineering |
+| 3 | **EN · FA** | Bilingual practice |
+
+Fourth slot where the layout has one: **Q.Arb** — in progress.
+
+The substitution principle (`AGENTS.md` §4): wherever the design wants a "how
+many", substitute a longer-arc credential. These are all true at launch and stay
+true; none grows by closing files.
+
+---
+
+## Per-page copy notes
+
+### Home
+Hero headline from the approved list. Positioning paragraph above. CTAs:
+*Request a consultation →* and *How I work*. The approach section makes the
+"two directions at once" argument — law and engineering converging on the same
+dispute — and keeps the infinity metaphor: *disputes are loops; the work is
+redrawing the loop into a line.* First person: "my mark", not "our mark".
+
+### About
+400–600 words of narrative, then structured credentials. Tell the three tracks
+as one arc, not three lists: a JD and an active litigation practice; a parallel
+career in machine learning and infrastructure engineering; a company run
+alongside both. The arc is the point — the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
+through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb is stated openly as in progress. The brief treats
+that arc as part of the story rather than something to obscure.
+
+Omit any section that would be empty. No "Speaking" heading until there is a
+talk to list.
+
+### Mediation / Arbitration / Med-Arb
+Procedural, specific, unembellished. Name the rules. Describe the formats. State
+what a party should expect to do and when. On `/arbitration/`, state the Q.Arb
+position in plain terms — what is available now versus what follows designation.
+
+`/med-arb/` addresses the procedural-fairness objection directly: the same
+neutral who heard a party's confidential caucus later decides the matter. Do not
+elide it. Explain the consent mechanics and when the process is inappropriate.
+Meeting the strongest objection is what makes the page worth reading.
+
+### Practice areas
+Each page: dispute types, why this practice fits, what the process looks like,
+and the market context that makes the area live. Context comes from the strategy
+brief §III–IV — Ontario's megaproject pipeline, Bill 40 and grid connection, the
+2026 privacy statute, LAT volumes.
+
+**Frame as positioning, not as history.** "Built to facilitate procurement and
+subcontract disputes on Ontario's megaproject pipeline" — not "extensive
+experience resolving". The first is true and forward-looking. The second is
+neither.
+
+### Process
+Five steps with real timing. Say what happens if the matter does not settle —
+counsel want to know the downside shape before they commit a client's day.
+
+### Fees
+**Blocked on Q4.** Real numbers or `TODO(pouya)`. Plain table, no "starting from"
+evasions, no "contact for pricing" after promising a rate card.
+
+### For parties
+The one page in second person. Grade-9 reading level. Short sentences. Says
+explicitly: the mediator is not your lawyer and cannot give you legal advice; the
+mediator does not decide who is right. Answers what it costs and what happens if
+you do not settle.
+
+### Insights
+1,200–1,800 words, monthly cadence (brief §VIII). Territories from §VII:
+process explainers · regulatory commentary · industry dispute commentary ·
+anonymised reflections · technical explainers for lawyers · credentialing content.
+
+Every piece links to at least one practice-area page. Anonymised reflections must
+be genuinely unidentifiable — not merely name-stripped. If a matter could be
+recognised by the parties to it, it does not run.
+
+### Launch article slate (D9)
+Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:
+
+1. *What the Ontario data-centre build-out means for dispute resolution* —
+   technology + construction; the strongest single differentiator piece.
+2. *When Med-Arb is the right answer, and when it is not* — process explainer;
+   feeds `/med-arb/`; high search intent, thin competition.
+3. *Bill 40 and grid connection: a dispute-resolution read* — regulatory
+   commentary; establishes the energy niche.
+4. *What a System Impact Assessment actually evaluates* — technical explainer for
+   lawyers; the clearest demonstration of the claim the whole brand rests on.
+5. *Choosing a neutral: what counsel should actually ask* — evergreen, useful,
+   and it makes the case for this practice without arguing for it.
+
+---
+
+## Compliance checklist — before any page ships
+
+- [ ] Every factual claim appears in `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified
+- [ ] No matter counts, settlement rates, dollar figures, or time-to-award stats
+- [ ] No testimonials, endorsements, or third-party quotes
+- [ ] No superlatives and no guarantee language
+- [ ] No claim or implication of legal licensure anywhere (D13)
+- [ ] Q.Arb described as commenced August 2026, never as held or nearly complete
+- [ ] Nothing implies a firm, a team, or offices that do not exist
+- [ ] Contact page states that an inquiry creates no retainer and no
+      mediator–party relationship
+- [ ] Any comparative claim is factual and verifiable