feat: price med-arb by phase, attest the conflicts undertaking, and answer the first real spam
Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s

Pouya's rulings of 2026-09-03 (the last two D20 findings) and 2026-09-04 (the
spam observation and four mitigations), in one change set.

D20 finding 10 — med-arb is billed BY PHASE, each phase at the rates already
published, so /fees/'s "Every figure is on this page" is true as written rather
than narrowed. FEES.medArb is the single source; docs/07 §Med-arb carries the
rule INTERIM against R5, and R5 now carries it back, because a derived price
moves silently when a rate moves.

D20 finding 13 — conduct undertaking (g), attested 2026-09-03, published as his
wording verbatim on /legal/privacy/ and /contact/. The clause that raised the
finding promised to DISCLOSE a conflicts check's outcome, which the attestation
does not cover; it is struck. D20 now partitions 17 fixed / 2 refuted / 1 owed.

Spam, 2026-09-04 — recorded in docs/05 §Observed abuse with the date and
signature. A second honeypot (a decoy checkbox, own class, `hidden`, a label
that tells a human not to tick it) and scoring that LABELS and never rejects:
nothing is dropped, nothing new is stored, and only the operator notification
changes. Q65 opens the WAF cost call.

The timing floor could not be built: there is no timing check and never has
been. docs/05 carries it struck, and every mechanism that would give a real
per-visitor clock breaks zero-JS, handler-and-form-only, or D1. Q66.

configure.mjs gains section 5 — a custom origin request policy forwarding
CloudFront-Viewer-Address on /api/*. Written, dry-run against the live
distribution, NOT applied. It reads the handler's own header reads and refuses
to run if the whitelist omits one.

And reading the live account to do it found four AGENTS.md §7 rows saying the
intake backend was undeployed, two days after it went live — corrected against
get-function-configuration, get-routes, get-stage, get-policy and the deployed
zip, which was downloaded and read.

Review: adversarial-reviewer only (claims-auditor is D20's cutover pass and has
run). Round 1 five lenses, 56 findings, 7 blocking, 4 refuted by an independent
refuter; round 2 four lenses, 36 findings, 33 of them defects in round 1's own
repairs. Stopped at two per D19.

Gates, exit status read for each: check 0 · build 0 (23 pages) · check:claims 0
· check:intake 0 · og:proof 0 · lint 0 · spam-score.test 39/39 with 6/6 mutations
killed · router.test 30/30 · minifier grep 1 (clean) · lighthouse 0, no category
below 95 · configure.mjs dry run 0, nothing written.

Nothing deployed and nothing applied.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5
This commit is contained in:
Pouya Lajevardi
2026-09-04 10:06:37 -04:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 02739adac9
commit 3c3ba5dc6e
21 changed files with 2443 additions and 141 deletions
+49
View File
@@ -249,6 +249,46 @@ paragraph this one used to point at.
**No tribunal-secretary rate.** Removed by Pouya. Do not reinstate it, and do not
offer tribunal-secretary work on the site.
### Med-arb — billed by phase
⚠️ **INTERIM. Set by Pouya 2026-09-03; reviewed at the twelve-month fee review,
`AGENTS.md` §12 R5.** It is stamped interim because it is the only rule on this
page set after the card was published rather than with it, and because it prices
an offering by reference to two other rows — if either moves at R5, this moves
with them and nobody will be reminded by a figure changing.
**The rule, and it carries no figure of its own:**
- Med-arb is billed **by phase**. The mediation phase is charged at the
**mediation** rates above. If the matter proceeds to arbitration, that phase is
charged at the **arbitration** rates above.
- **There is no separate med-arb fee.**
- The additional-party and cancellation terms apply to each phase **as they
apply to that process on its own**.
**Why this rule exists at all, because a fee page does not usually need one.**
`/fees/` opens *"Every figure is on this page"*, and `AGENTS.md` §4 Offerings
carries a **Med-Arb** row that this document priced nowhere. The promise was
therefore wider than the card — the D20 cutover claims pass, finding 10. Pouya
closed it by **pricing the offering rather than narrowing the promise**, which is
the more expensive of the two fixes and the one that leaves the page saying the
stronger thing.
⚠️ **DO NOT GIVE MED-ARB A RATE ROW.** A med-arb figure would be a fourth price
for a process that is already priced twice, and the first thing it would do is
disagree with one of them. The rule is expressed as a pointer to the two cards
above **on purpose**; that is what keeps the count of published figures the same
as the count of published rates.
⚠️ **"AS THEY APPLY TO THAT PROCESS ON ITS OWN" IS NOT "TO BOTH PHASES".** The
additional-party fee is a **mediation** row; the arbitration card has no
equivalent. The wording above invents nothing. *"The additional-party term
applies throughout"* would invent an additional-party charge in the arbitral
phase, which no ruling has set.
`FEES.medArb` in `src/data/site.ts` holds the three sentences and `/fees/`
renders them, so the rule is not retyped into the template.
### Other services — hourly
Early neutral evaluation, dispute-system design, and pre-dispute technical
@@ -313,6 +353,15 @@ for a reader with no counsel to catch it.)*
## Recorded dissent — for the 12-month review (R5)
⚠️ **SECOND ITEM FOR R5, ADDED 2026-09-04 — MED-ARB, AND IT IS NOT A DISSENT.**
It is here because **R5 names this section as where its items live**, and the
med-arb rule was stamped INTERIM against R5 in §Med-arb above and written into no
list the review actually reads. **The rule is derived** — each phase at the rates
for that process, no figure of its own — so **moving any mediation or arbitration
number at R5 moves the med-arb price with it, silently, with no diff on the
med-arb rule.** Nothing else on this page has that property. Check it against
whatever the review does to the two cards above.
Claude recommended a two-tier card; Pouya set a single rate. The reasoning is
recorded here so the 12-month review has something to test against, not to
re-open a settled decision.