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

src/content/insights/choosing-a-neutral-what-counsel-should-ask.mdx

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+title: 'Choosing a neutral: what counsel should actually ask'
+description: 'What counsel should ask before appointing a mediator or a commercial arbitrator: what a designation records, whose rules apply, and who reads the record.'
+# publishDate is the drafting date. Set it on approval (D9).
+publishDate: 2026-08-31
+topics: ['process-explainer', 'credentialing']
+practiceAreas: ['construction', 'technology']
+readingTime: 7
+draft: true
+reviewedByPouya: false
+---
+
+import { CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS } from '../../data/site';
+
+## What a designation records, and what it does not
+
+Counsel choosing a neutral usually has a short list of names, a rate for each, and a signature block full of abbreviations. The abbreviations are the part most often skipped. They are also the part that can be checked in a few minutes.
+
+The ADR Institute of Ontario publishes its own expansions on its professional designations page. Q.Med is Qualified Mediator. Q.Arb is Qualified Arbitrator. C.Med is Chartered Mediator. C.Arb is Chartered Arbitrator. The long forms are worth taking from the conferring body's own page rather than from recall, because the abbreviations sit close together and a wrong expansion is easy to write.
+
+What those designations record is training. ADRIO's page for the Qualified designations describes them as recognising practitioners who have completed sufficient mediation or arbitration training, and related dispute resolution training. The same page notes that Q.Med criteria vary across affiliates, and points an applicant to the checklist on the application form for the criteria specific to Ontario.
+
+What the page does not describe is what any activity requires. ADRIO sets out what its own designations recognise, and it says nothing about permission. A designation should not be read as though it did. So the question a designation answers is narrow: which body conferred it, against which criteria, and is it current.
+
+Currency is the half that gets assumed. ADRIO's pages for C.Med and C.Arb each state that there is an annual fee to maintain the designation, payable to the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., and that the holder must remain a member in good standing with the ADR Institute of Ontario to retain it. The Qualified page addresses neither fees nor retention. That is a fact about the page rather than an answer, particularly since ADRIO records on the same page that the criteria vary across affiliates. A signature block cannot settle currency. That is a question for the neutral, or for the conferring body.
+
+## Whose rules the process will run under
+
+The second question is whose rules the process runs under, and it is cheaper to ask before an appointment than to discover at the first call.
+
+For mediation, the ADR Institute of Canada publishes the ADRIC National Mediation Rules. ADRIC's own description is that the rules provide for initiating mediations, including the appointment of a mediator should the parties be unable to come to an agreement. The document carries more than the rules themselves: a code of conduct, a standard form agreement to mediate at Schedule B, ADRIC's administration fees at Schedule A, and a model dispute resolution clause for contracts.
+
+One currency note on the same rules. ADRIC's page states, as of 2025, that its Mediation Committee is reviewing the Mediation Rules, and that the existing rules remain in effect and should continue to be used until any updates are formally adopted. The sensible course is to check it at the point of appointment rather than to date the rules in a submission.
+
+For arbitration, ADRIC adopted new Arbitration Rules and a new Arbitrator Appointment Protocol effective 1 March 2025, published as the ADRIC Arbitration Rules – Effective 2025. It publishes named forms alongside them: Notice to Arbitrate, Request to Administer the Arbitration, Request for the appointment of an arbitrator, Application for Urgent Interim Measures, Application to Challenge an Arbitrator, and Notice of Appeal.
+
+None of that is a statement of what the rules require. The rules are published documents, and where an appointment will run under them the document is the thing to read rather than a summary of it, this one included. What can be settled in advance is which rule set applies, what governs where the contract is silent, and what the tribunal is left to decide. Where it is silent, the protocol is settled in writing before the session. I set out the rule sets I work under on [mediation](/mediation/) and [commercial arbitration](/arbitration/).
+
+## What the neutral does with what is said in caucus
+
+Third, and this is the question that discriminates most: what happens to caucus material.
+
+In mediation the answer should be stated rather than assumed. Mine is published, and it is this. "{CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS.mediationCaucus}"
+
+In med-arb the question is harder, because the neutral who hears the caucus may later decide the matter. ADRIC publishes ADRIC Med-Arb Rules, presented to its membership as a discussion draft at its 2019 annual conference and designed, in ADRIC's words, to "work in tandem with ADRIC's existing Mediation Rules and Arbitration Rules." Nothing here is a claim about what that draft provides, or about its status. Where a med-arb appointment names a rule set, the document is the thing to read.
+
+Two things are worth asking of any med-arb appointment, and both are answerable in writing before it starts. The first is when and how the switch from mediation to arbitration happens, and what has to be agreed for it to happen at all. The second is what becomes of something said in confidence that turns out to matter to the decision. I accept med-arb appointments in commercial matters, and both answers are set out on [med-arb](/med-arb/). The second is the harder one. "{CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS.medArbStepOut}"
+
+## Dates, and whether they are real
+
+Fourth: availability. Three questions get at it. Which dates are actually held. How long a date is held without a signed agreement to mediate. Whether a second day is booked at the outset or looked for after the first one runs out.
+
+Where the parties cannot agree on a name, ADRIC's National Mediation Rules cover the appointment of a mediator. That is a route rather than a date.
+
+In a commercial arbitration the date that matters most is the award. Mine is published, and it is this. "{CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS.arbitrationAwardDate}"
+
+No turnaround figure is published here. A time to award quoted before anyone has seen the record is a guess, whoever quotes it. A date in the first procedural order is a different thing: it is fixed once the shape of the record is known, and both parties can see it.
+
+## Fees, and what happens when the day runs long
+
+Fifth. The rate is the easy part of the fee question. What a day means and when it ends, whether preparation is charged separately and how it is estimated, the cancellation schedule and the notice period it turns on, who is billed and in what shares — those are the terms that decide what a process actually costs.
+
+The overrun question is specific enough to be worth its own sentence. A session is booked to five o'clock, and at seven the parties are close. The possible answers are all defensible: the day converts to hourly, a day is a day whatever it runs to, the neutral stops. What is not defensible is finding out which one applies at half past six.
+
+ADRIC's mediation rules publish the institute's administration fees at Schedule A of the same document. Whether they apply to a given appointment is a question for the institute, and it is not the neutral's own fee.
+
+## Whether the neutral can read the record the dispute turns on
+
+Sixth, and last. Some disputes turn on a document rather than on a submission — a critical-path analysis is one, a model card is another.
+
+I work as a machine-learning and infrastructure engineer. On a [construction](/practice/construction/) file that means the baseline programme, the as-built, the change-order log and the delay analysis are documents I read, rather than take on trust from whichever expert explains them most confidently. On a [technology](/practice/technology/) file it means an API trace, a set of monitoring dashboards, a model card, an evaluation harness and a data-processing addendum.
+
+The question that gets at this with any neutral is which primary documents will be read before the session, and which will be taken on an expert's account of them. An answer that names documents can be checked against the productions. An answer that names an industry cannot.
+
+## Asked before the appointment, and answered in writing
+
+None of this requires a long call. All of it is easier to raise before an appointment than after, because before the appointment an answer is a term and after it is a complaint.
+
+[The shape of an engagement](/process/) sets out when conflicts are run: on the intake call, before anything is agreed. Where a party has no counsel, [what happens at a mediation](/for-parties/) is the more useful page. Everything else above is a question, and the answers are what counsel is actually choosing between.