feat: price med-arb by phase, attest the conflicts undertaking, and answer the first real spam

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

src/pages/legal/privacy.astro

@@ -59,10 +59,16 @@
  */
 import BaseLayout from '../../layouts/BaseLayout.astro';
 import Eyebrow from '../../components/Eyebrow.astro';
+import Undertaking from '../../components/Undertaking.astro';
 import { getImage } from 'astro:assets';
 import ogDefault from '../../assets/og-portrait.jpg';
 import { pageGraph } from '../../data/schema';
-import { ANALYTICS, CONTACT, SITE } from '../../data/site';
+import {
+  ANALYTICS,
+  CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS,
+  CONTACT,
+  SITE,
+} from '../../data/site';
 import { INTAKE_FIELDS } from '../../data/intake';
 
 const ldImage = await getImage({
@@ -85,7 +91,7 @@ const RETENTION_MONTHS = 24;
 
 /** Bump this on ANY substantive edit. A privacy policy with a stale date is a
  *  policy a reader cannot tell they are reading an old version of. */
-const LAST_UPDATED = '3 September 2026';
+const LAST_UPDATED = '4 September 2026';
 
 /* Rendered from the form's own field list, so the two cannot drift. `consent`
    and the honeypot are absent from `INTAKE_FIELDS` deliberately and are
@@ -160,15 +166,34 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
         <p>
           The form asks for the other parties to the dispute and their counsel.
           That is information about people who have not filled in the form and
-          may not know it was sent. It is asked for one reason: I cannot accept
-          an appointment before conflicts are checked, and the check needs
-          names.
+          may not know it was sent. It is asked for one reason, and the reason
+          is a commitment rather than an observation.
         </p>
+        {
+          /* `<Undertaking>` AND `CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS`, NEVER TYPED PROSE —
+            §4's third class, whose characteristic failure mode is that a
+            promise gets quietly smaller and nothing fails. Undertaking (g),
+            attested 2026-09-03.
+
+            ⚠️ IT IS THE COMPONENT FOR THE REASON THE COMPONENT EXISTS: one
+            treatment on every page, so a reader can tell a promise from a
+            description. This shipped for one pass as an ordinary paragraph in
+            `&ldquo;`/`&rdquo;` — the only such entities in `src/`, and a
+            commitment set as body prose reads as another sentence about
+            process.
+
+            It REPLACED the hand-typed "I cannot accept an appointment before
+            conflicts are checked", which stated the same proposition as a
+            constraint; keeping both would have set the undertaking beside its
+            own paraphrase — the (e)/(f) treatment. */
+        }
+        <Undertaking>{CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS.conflictsCheck}</Undertaking>
         <p>
-          Please give names and nothing more about them. The form asks you not
-          to include privileged or confidential detail anywhere in it, and the
-          summary field says so directly. There is deliberately no field for
-          amounts in dispute and no way to attach a document.
+          The check needs names. Please give names and nothing more about them.
+          The form asks you not to include privileged or confidential detail
+          anywhere in it, and the summary field says so directly. There is
+          deliberately no field for amounts in dispute and no way to attach a
+          document.
         </p>
 
         <h2>Why it is collected, and on what basis</h2>
@@ -340,11 +365,21 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
           delete it before the {RETENTION_MONTHS} months are up.
           {' '}{CONTACT.responseTime}
         </p>
+        {
+          /* ⚠️ THE CLAUSE THAT WAS HERE PROMISED TO DISCLOSE THE OUTCOME OF A
+            CONFLICTS CHECK — *"I will tell you what its outcome was rather than
+            pretending the inquiry did not happen"* — and that is an UNDERTAKING,
+            which §4 may publish only where Pouya has made it in terms. He had
+            not. D20 finding 13, and it is closed by his attestation of
+            2026-09-03, which covers RUNNING the check and says nothing about
+            reporting it. The sentence now states what deletion does not undo and
+            stops there. Do not restore the promise without a second attestation:
+            it is a different commitment from the one he made. */
+        }
         <p>
           Deletion removes the record. It does not retract the emails already
-          sent, and if a conflicts check has already been run I will tell you
-          what its outcome was rather than pretending the inquiry did not
-          happen.
+          sent, and it does not undo a conflicts check that has already been
+          run.
         </p>
 
         <h2>What an inquiry is not</h2>