feat: build steps 7a-10 — the site is complete and reviewable at 22 pages

Steps 7a through 10 as one authorised run. Nothing deployed (D11).

7a  Lighthouse returns as `lighthouse@13.4.1` + `chrome-launcher`, NOT
    `@lhci/cli`. AGENTS.md §7's advisory attribution was wrong: the carriers
    were @lhci/cli's own `tmp` and @puppeteer/browsers' `extract-zip`, not
    Lighthouse, which audits clean. A deliberate deviation from R11's literal
    trigger, recorded with what it costs. Local gate; CI has no Chrome.

7b  OG card generator (satori + sharp) discharges R15 — 20 typed cards plus
    per-article cards; the portrait stays on / and /about/ by Q40. Insights
    plumbing: ArticleCard, Prose, the index, the article route, articleGraph,
    and /'s section 7. Card copy is constrained structurally because text in a
    JPEG cannot be grepped by check:claims: every headline IS its page's <h1>,
    enforced by `npm run og:proof`.

7c  Five drafted launch articles, draft: true / reviewedByPouya: false. An
    independent compliance audit returned 76 findings and 57 unsourced
    assertions; all blocking and should-fix applied.

8   /contact/, the intake form, and backend/intake/ (undeployed). Plain HTML
    POST to a same-origin /api/intake with a 303 redirect, so the form works
    with zero JavaScript. docs/05 records three deliberate deviations.

9   /fees/ on Q59's ruling — overtime runs from the session cap, and the
    reservation point ships adjacent to the rate. One-page PDF bio discharges
    R16; /bio/ is its source, so the circulated artefact stays inside the
    review apparatus.

10  /legal/privacy/ and /legal/terms/, written to the backend as built. Three
    of the policy's statements are derived and cannot drift.

Also: /about/'s inverse credentials band (approved at step 6); Q59 closed;
R15 and R16 discharged; and a fix to shipped copy — /practice/energy/ asserted
the absence of a regulation the source extract says must not be asserted.

Review: adversarial-reviewer, two rounds (D20/D19). Round 1 returned 16
findings including two blocking — an invisible ghost button on /fees/ at
1.00:1 that Lighthouse scored 100, and a privacy policy that named one data
processor when there are two. All 16 acted on.

Lighthouse, 22 pages, mobile: performance 99-100, accessibility 100,
best practices 100, SEO 100 on every indexable page, CLS 0.000.

AGENTS.md entry (ah) has the detail, including four of my own verification
commands that were wrong and what each of them nearly caused.

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

.claude/agents/adversarial-reviewer.md

@@ -85,10 +85,12 @@ unless the change explains why CSS or progressive HTML could not do the job.
 **4. Performance.** Budgets in `docs/04-seo-spec.md`: Lighthouse ≥ 95 mobile on
 all four categories, under 100 KB JS per route, LCP under 2.0 s.
 
-**Lighthouse itself cannot be run right now** — `@lhci/cli` was removed on
-2026-08-26 and returns at build step 7 (`AGENTS.md` §7, R11). So do not report
-"Lighthouse not run" as a finding; it is a known, recorded gap. Review
-everything that *would* move those numbers by reading the artefact instead:
+**Lighthouse runs again** — `npm run lighthouse`, since 2026-08-31 (`AGENTS.md`
+§7). It is a local gate and is not wired into the build, so a change set may
+legitimately arrive unmeasured; **if the numbers matter to a finding, say so and
+say they were not run**, rather than either assuming them or treating the absence
+as the finding. Review everything that *would* move those numbers by reading the
+artefact as well:
 base64-inlined images, images without explicit dimensions, runtime font
 requests, and third-party scripts. The old build is *said* to have inlined ~1 MB
 of logo PNGs — `AGENTS.md` Q34 is open against that figure, so watch for