feat: D20 moves the claims pass to cutover; rule Q56 unscoped; close Q55; freeze check:claims

Four rulings from Pouya, 2026-08-30, and their sweep.

D20 — the review protocol. Per build step the review is `adversarial-reviewer`
alone. `claims-auditor` no longer runs per step; it runs ONCE, at cutover, over
the whole finished site, as a blocking item near the top of docs/06's checklist.
`check:claims` is unchanged and still runs on every build and both deploy paths.
The reasoning is recorded in full in AGENTS.md D20, as a calibration and not an
erosion: nothing has shipped, so every claims finding so far has been about a
page no visitor can reach, and one pass over twenty finished pages catches more
than nine passes over drafts because it sees the site as a reader does. The
/med-arb/ ADRIC gloss is the proof — no individual claim was false, the defect
was adjacency, and adjacency does not exist until the pages sit next to each
other. The code reviewer stays per step because what it catches compounds.
What this costs is recorded honestly beside it, not summarised away.

D17 and D19 amended to match. D19's two-round cap governs the per-step code
review only; the single cutover claims pass runs until its findings are
resolved, because there is no second pass behind it.

Q56 — mediation is NOT scoped commercial. Thirteen shipped strings corrected
across five files: page titles, meta descriptions, hero ledes, section ledes,
the `Service` node's name and description, and `ProfessionalService`'s. §4's
mediation row stays unscoped, and the reason now sits beside both rows so the
asymmetry reads as designed: arbitration is scoped commercial because of a
LEGAL GATE (Q39 — family arbitration in Ontario requires prescribed training);
mediation has no such gate. `adversarial-reviewer` then found three surfaces
the sweep had missed, the worst on /practice/ — "These describe the process the
parties are choosing between, in commercial matters" scoped mediation with the
two words never appearing in the same element, so no proximity grep reached it.

Q55 — CLOSED WITHOUT BEING RESOLVED, and the difference is the ruling. The
Q.Arb stamp is split: `[verified]` on the status, `[Pouya's stated basis]` on
the date. The 2026-08-26 record is marked UNRECONCILED, permanently and on
purpose. The date is not published and nothing depends on it.

check:claims — FROZEN. Round 2 found five defects in round 1's own fixes to
that script, two of which made it worse than before the pattern existed. A
pattern is added only after a real breach reaches dist/, never speculatively,
and each addition ships with a probe plus a negative fixture. No refactors, no
coverage improvements. It is a tripwire, not a program.

Two conventions into CLAUDE.md: sweep the VOCABULARY, not only the subject
(`git grep 'Q.Arb'` is line-anchored and could not find ten lines entirely
about Q.Arb that never name it); and agent definitions load at session start,
so an edit to .claude/agents/*.md does not reach the session that made it.

Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0, build 0 (12 pages), check:claims 0.
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

.claude/commands/build.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ does not apply, say which and why before moving on.
    Reminders** and surface anything live to Pouya before you start.
 2. Read the specs in `docs/` that bear on this task.
 3. Restate the task in your own words, and name:
-   - which locked decisions (D1–D19) it touches
+   - which locked decisions (D1–D20) it touches
    - which specs govern it
    - which facts it needs from the §4 Verified register
 4. **Stop and ask if you find a conflict** — between the task and a locked
@@ -45,24 +45,36 @@ number.
 
 ## Phase 3 — Adversarial review (this is not optional)
 
-Invoke **both** review agents on the change, in parallel:
+Invoke **one** review agent on the change:
 
 - `adversarial-reviewer` — correctness, accessibility, crawlability,
   performance, security, simplicity
-- `claims-auditor` — every factual assertion traced to `AGENTS.md` §4
 
-**Give them the diff and the specs. Do not give them your reasoning for why the
-work is correct.** Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement
-instead of review. They form their own view from the artefact; that independence
-is the whole point of the phase.
+**`claims-auditor` does NOT run here — D20, Pouya, 2026-08-30.** It runs **once,
+at cutover**, over the whole finished site, as a blocking item on `docs/06`'s
+checklist. Do not invoke it per step, and do not reinstate it because a change
+set looks claim-heavy: that judgement was already made against the measured cost,
+which `AGENTS.md` D20 records in full. If a claim genuinely worries you, the
+answer is a `TODO(pouya)` and a §9 question — the thing that blocks — not an
+unscheduled audit.
+
+Two things carry the claims risk between now and cutover, and neither is
+optional: **`npm run check:claims` in Phase 5**, and **Pouya reading the copy as
+it is built**.
+
+**Give it the diff and the specs. Do not give it your reasoning for why the work
+is correct.** Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement instead
+of review. It forms its own view from the artefact; that independence is the
+whole point of the phase.
 
 ### Scope — D19
 
 Review is bounded. **In scope:** `dist/`, `src/`, the specs that direct copy
 (`docs/01`, `03`, `04`, `07`), and `AGENTS.md` §3, §4, §7, §9, §12. **Out of
 scope:** the Change Log, the agents' own briefs, `AGENTS.md` prose outside those
-sections, and the historical accuracy of code comments. Both briefs carry the
-same boundary — do not widen it in the prompt.
+sections, and the historical accuracy of code comments. Both agent briefs carry
+the same boundary — do not widen it in the prompt. It binds the cutover claims
+pass too, which is the one place `claims-auditor` still runs.
 
 ### The stop signal
 
@@ -72,8 +84,9 @@ itself, and noticing it is part of the job — not a licence to skip the phase.
 The shape to watch for, from the session that produced D19: a Change Log sweep
 that could not reproduce *because writing it changed the file it counted*.
 
-If the change touches no user-facing copy, `claims-auditor` may be skipped — say
-so explicitly.
+**The claims pass is deferred, not deleted.** Say which review ran in your
+report. "Reviewed" without naming the agent reads as both, and under D20 it is
+one.
 
 ## Phase 4 — Resolve
 
@@ -113,8 +126,10 @@ npm run check:claims
 ```
 
 `check:claims` greps the built pages for the §4 Forbidden set — Pouya's ruling,
-2026-08-29. **Every pattern it catches is a finding neither review agent has to
-spend a pass on**, which is D19 served directly. It self-tests its own patterns
+2026-08-29. **Under D20 it is the only per-step claims control there is**, so
+never skip it and never let a build ship on a stale `dist/`. It is a tripwire,
+not a program: it catches the §4 breaches that are greppable and it makes no
+claim about the ones that are not. It self-tests its own patterns
 before it sweeps and refuses to run against an empty or stale `dist/`, so a pass
 is a pass on the bytes that would ship. **A match is not yet a finding** — read
 the context it prints. If a pattern is genuinely wrong, change it deliberately