feat: Q.Arb is held; strike C.Med-Arb entirely; dissolve the paired disclosure

Pouya's ruling, 2026-08-29. Treated as D3-class and swept accordingly.

§4
  Q.Arb becomes a HELD designation. Obtained July 2026 — recorded in the
  register, deliberately not published. Public copy carries "Q.Arb (ADRIC /
  ADRIO)" beside Q.Med and nothing more. Every stage form is struck:
  "commenced", "in progress", "pathway", "not yet".

  C.Med-Arb as a stated goal is struck. This DEVIATES FROM THE STRATEGY BRIEF,
  which made it "the explicit long-term professional narrative"; the brief is
  not in this repository, so the deviation is recorded in four places so nobody
  reinstates it from a document no reader can open. The designation stays in
  §11 as a definition — what is struck is its status as a goal of his.

  The paired-disclosure condition dissolves. It existed only because Q.Arb was
  in progress; there is no stage left to disclose, and a condition with no
  subject cannot be half-kept.

Pages
  /about/'s credentialing arc is DELETED, not rewritten — two held designations
  are not a journey. /arbitration/ loses its stage section and its "Available
  now, and open about the stage" h1. /med-arb/'s endpoint section is rewritten.
  Deleting CREDENTIALS.goal/goalName rather than emptying them turned every
  consumer into a build error, which is how the last two surfaced.

  hasCredential now maps CREDENTIALS.designations instead of indexing [0];
  _DesignationRowParity pins the visible credential row to the same constant.

check:claims
  q-arb-as-a-stage (inverted from the predecessor, which barred Q.Arb reading
  as HELD) and c-med-arb-struck. Each page is now scanned twice — as published,
  and with inline tags collapsed — because [^<] cannot cross <strong>, which
  this site sets in prose.

Two open questions for Pouya, neither blocking:
  Q55 — the acquisition date. §4 says obtained July 2026; the Change Log of
  2026-08-26 records "commenced August 2026", both stamped [verified — Pouya].
  They cannot both be true. Nothing published turns on it.
  Q56 — is the mediation offering scoped commercial? §4 leaves it unscoped;
  four surfaces say "commercial mediation"; /practice/insurance/ offers
  mediation in insured-versus-insurer SABS matters.

Two review rounds, all findings applied or declined with a stated reason.
Round 2 found ten lines in docs/03 still instructing the struck form — the
2026-08-29 sweep missed them because `git grep 'Q.Arb'` is line-anchored and
the block never names it. Sweep the vocabulary, not only the subject.

Gates, exit statuses read directly, never through a pipe:
  npm run check        exit=0  (0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 hints)
  npm run lint         exit=0
  npm run build        exit=0  (12 pages)
  npm run check:claims exit=0  (11 patterns, 26 approved strings)
  npm audit            exit=0

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

docs/01-architecture.md

@@ -81,8 +81,15 @@ the ceiling before a nav stops being scannable.
 ## Deliberate omission: Indigenous engagement
 
 The strategy brief (§III.4) rates Indigenous engagement, IBA, and consultation-
-breakdown mediation as *"strategically the most valuable single niche"* for a
-Q.Med on the C.Med-Arb pathway.
+breakdown mediation as *"strategically the most valuable single niche"*.
+
+⚠️ **THAT SENTENCE USED TO CONTINUE "for a Q.Med on the C.Med-Arb pathway", AND
+BOTH HALVES WERE DEFECTIVE.** *"pathway"* is a struck stage form (§4, 2026-08-29),
+and the clause sat **outside** the quotation marks in `docs/01`'s own voice while
+a parenthetical called the whole thing *"the brief's framing, quoted"* — a
+quotation boundary the marks do not draw, which is the gloss defect inverted.
+Only the four quoted words come from the brief, and the brief is not in this
+repository (R14). The reasoning below never turned on either half.
 
 There is no page for it at launch, on the following reasoning:
 
@@ -139,7 +146,11 @@ four audiences to its surface.
    stands; do not lift the phrase into copy** — it reached `/` once already.
    State the asymmetry instead: `docs/03` §The credential row. Infinity mark as the visual anchor.
 4. **Two practices.** Mediation and Arbitration cards → `/mediation/`, `/arbitration/`.
-   Med-Arb named here as the long-term arc, linking to `/med-arb/`.
+   Med-Arb named here, linking to `/med-arb/`. ⚠️ **This item read "named here as
+   the long-term arc" until 2026-08-29.** There is no arc — C.Med-Arb is struck
+   (§4) — and Med-Arb has had its own §4 Offerings row since 2026-08-27 (Q35),
+   so it is named as a **present offering**. `index.astro` cited this item as
+   amended before it was; both are correct now.
 5. **Practice areas.** Six-card grid → `/practice/*`. This is the most important
    block on the page for search, because it distributes authority to the pages
    that can actually rank.
@@ -167,10 +178,13 @@ to an appointment. This page carries the verifiable record.
    engineering, operating a company — told as one arc rather than three lists.
 3. **Credentials**, structured and scannable: designations, education,
    certifications, memberships. Every line from `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified.
-4. **The credentialing arc.** Q.Med held → Q.Arb **commenced August 2026** →
-   C.Med-Arb as the
-   endpoint. The brief (§V) treats the arc itself as part of the story; say so
-   openly rather than implying a finished state.
+4. ~~**The credentialing arc.**~~ ⚠️ **STRUCK 2026-08-29 — Pouya, and the
+   section is deleted from the page, not rewritten.** *"Two held designations,
+   no journey… An arc invites 'where are you on it'; two designations don't."*
+   Q.Arb is held and C.Med-Arb is off the site entirely, so the item had no
+   subject. **Do not restore it from this outline or from the brief (§V), which
+   treated the arc as part of the story.** What it carried belongs in item 3,
+   which is a list of held things.
 5. **Languages and cross-cultural practice.**
 6. **Speaking and publications.** Omit the section entirely until there is
    something in it. An empty "Speaking" heading is worse than no heading.
@@ -228,7 +242,9 @@ an *agreement* settles, not what he promises.
 
 ### `/arbitration/`
 
-**Job:** the same, for arbitration — and to state the Q.Arb position honestly.
+**Job:** the same, for arbitration. *(This read "and to state the Q.Arb
+position honestly" until 2026-08-29; Q.Arb is held and there is no position to
+state.)*
 **Search intent:** `sole arbitrator Ontario`, `expedited arbitration Canada`,
 `documents-only arbitration`.
 
@@ -246,17 +262,17 @@ an *agreement* settles, not what he promises.
    edition date (1 March 2025) is published on the page because ADRIC publishes
    one.
 4. Awards — form, reasoning, timing.
-5. **Credentialing status, stated plainly.** The Q.Arb pathway **commenced
-   August 2026**; the page says so in those words. *"In progress" was the
-   wording here until 2026-08-28 and it is barred — `docs/06`'s own cutover
-   checklist says "§4's wording, not the looser 'in progress'", and this is the
-   spec for the page that has to get it right.* **What is available now is all three forms — sole,
-   party-appointed and co-arbitration** — and `AGENTS.md` §4 Offerings carries a
-   row for each `[verified 2026-08-26 — Pouya]`. The page states that alongside
-   the credentialing stage: Q.Arb commenced August 2026, C.Med-Arb is the
-   endpoint. §4 Offerings: **neither half may be dropped.** Honesty here is a
-   differentiator, not a weakness — and misstating it in either direction is a
-   conduct problem.
+5. ~~**Credentialing status, stated plainly.**~~ ⚠️ **STRUCK 2026-08-29 —
+   Pouya. Q.Arb is HELD, and §4's paired-disclosure condition dissolved with the
+   stage it required.** *"It existed only because Q.Arb was in progress. There
+   is no stage left to disclose."* The page's whole credentialing-stage section
+   is deleted, its `<h1>` no longer reads *"Available now, and open about the
+   stage"*, and **no residue of the condition may be reintroduced** — a page
+   that offers arbitration and then reaches for something qualifying to say is
+   reproducing it from memory. **What survives:** all three forms — sole,
+   party-appointed and co-arbitration — are offered now, with an `AGENTS.md` §4
+   Offerings row for each `[verified 2026-08-26 — Pouya]`, and the scope is
+   **commercial** (Q39, Pouya's own choice, never part of this condition).
    *(This paragraph read "(co-arbitration, co-arbitration)" until 2026-08-26 —
    edited without being re-read — and then carried a caveat against Q36 for
    several hours after Q36 closed. Both are recorded because the pattern is the
@@ -272,8 +288,8 @@ is "Mediator".
 
 ### `/med-arb/`
 
-**Job:** own a term few Canadian neutrals explain well, and frame the C.Med-Arb
-endpoint.
+**Job:** own a term few Canadian neutrals explain well. *(This read "and frame
+the C.Med-Arb endpoint" until 2026-08-29; C.Med-Arb is off the site.)*
 **Search intent:** `med-arb Canada`, `what is med-arb`, `arb-med`.
 
 1. What Med-Arb is; how it differs from Arb-Med.
@@ -295,17 +311,26 @@ endpoint.
    with no §4 row.* Three are drafted for his approval in **Q54**; the section is
    incomplete until he rules.
 3. When it fits and when it does not.
-4. The C.Med-Arb designation and why it is the practice's stated endpoint.
+4. ~~The C.Med-Arb designation and why it is the practice's stated endpoint.~~
+   ⚠️ **STRUCK 2026-08-29 — Pouya. C.Med-Arb is out entirely, and this is a
+   deliberate deviation from the strategy brief**, which made it *"the explicit
+   long-term professional narrative"*. His reasoning: *"Pouya holds Q.Med and
+   Q.Arb, which is what med-arb requires. The page says he conducts med-arb and
+   stops."* The section is **rewritten, not edited** — it earned its credibility
+   from an incomplete credential and now says what med-arb demands of one
+   neutral and that he holds both designations.
 5. **The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules**, which this spec did not mention and which exist:
-   a published rule set, put to ADRIC's membership in 2019, drafted for domestic
+   a published rule set, presented to ADRIC's membership at its 2019 annual conference, drafted for domestic
    commercial disputes and designed to work with its Mediation and Arbitration
    Rules. Sourced: `docs/reference/adric-rules.md` Finding 2. Quote ADRIC's own
    framing rather than paraphrasing it, and **keep its superlatives inside the
    quotation marks** — Finding 5 lists the two not to lift.
 
 This page is a strong candidate for the best-performing page on the site.
-Search demand exists, competition is thin, and it maps exactly to the brand's
-long-term narrative.
+Search demand exists and competition is thin. *(This closed "and it maps exactly
+to the brand's long-term narrative" — the C.Med-Arb narrative struck thirteen
+lines above on 2026-08-29. The two reasons that survive are the two that were
+ever measurable.)*
 
 ### `/practice/` — index
 

docs/03-content-spec.md

@@ -79,23 +79,31 @@ detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
 
   The shape of the bullet still stands, so here is a sentence that fits it and
   clears the register: *"I accept sole, party-appointed and co-arbitration
-  appointments **in commercial matters**. The Q.Arb **pathway** commenced in
-  August 2026; C.Med-Arb is the endpoint."* **"in commercial matters" is not
+  appointments **in commercial matters**."* ⚠️ **THE SECOND SENTENCE IS STRUCK
+  (2026-08-29).** It read *"The Q.Arb **pathway** commenced in August 2026;
+  C.Med-Arb is the endpoint"*; Q.Arb is held, C.Med-Arb is off the site, and §4's
+  paired-disclosure condition that required a second sentence at all is
+  dissolved. **The limit this bullet names is now the SCOPE, not the stage** —
+  which is the durable half. **"in commercial matters" is not
   optional** — every §4 Offerings arbitration row is scoped commercial, family
   arbitration has its own NOT OFFERED row, and §4's NOT-NEGOTIABLE boundary
   records the unscoped class form as the struck universal (Q39). This model
   sentence was unscoped until 2026-08-28 while the shipped page it feeds was
   scoped; found by `claims-auditor` on re-audit, one file over from the same
-  defect fixed in `docs/04` earlier the same day. **"Pathway", never "designation"** — a *designation* that
-  "commenced in August 2026" reads as in force since then, i.e. **held**, which
-  §4 Forbidden bars outright. This model sentence said "designation" until
-  2026-08-28 and it is copy an implementer is told to lift; found by
-  `claims-auditor`. The limit being named is the **stage of the arc**, stated plainly —
-  Pouya's instruction is that being open about it is the differentiator, so do
-  not hedge it into vagueness and do not drop it. (**No tribunal-secretary
-  work** — D14
-  removed the rate and bars offering it; see `docs/07-fees.md`.) Precision about
-  what you cannot yet do makes the rest believable.
+  defect fixed in `docs/04` earlier the same day.
+
+  ⚠️ **TEN LINES WERE DELETED HERE ON 2026-08-30, AND THE DELETION IS THE
+  POINT.** They read *"'Pathway', never 'designation'"*, cited the **struck**
+  Forbidden row as live, instructed that *"the limit being named is the stage of
+  the arc, stated plainly"*, and closed *"Precision about what you cannot yet do
+  makes the rest believable."* Every one of those directs an implementer to
+  write the form §4 now bars — **eleven lines below this bullet's own strike
+  notice**, so one bullet said both things. The Q25 shape, in the copy deck an
+  implementer is told to lift verbatim. **The 2026-08-29 sweep missed it because
+  `git grep -nE 'Q\.?Arb'` is line-anchored and not one of those ten lines
+  contained the string.** Found by `claims-auditor` on the round-2 audit.
+  (**No tribunal-secretary work** — D14 removed the rate and bars offering it;
+  see `docs/07-fees.md`.)
 - Plain words over Latin. "Without prejudice" survives because it is a term of
   art; *inter alia* does not.
 
@@ -229,17 +237,18 @@ session that wrote them. Consume the constant on any page that needs the
 sentence. Do not retype it, do not paraphrase it, and do not quote a variant of
 it in a spec.
 
-Fourth slot where the layout has one: **Q.Arb — commenced August 2026.** Use
-that wording, not "in progress": §4 pins it, and the weaker form drifts toward
-"nearly complete", which §4 Forbidden bars outright.
+Fourth slot where the layout has one: **`Q.Arb` over `ADRIC / ADRIO designation`**
+— the label is byte-identical to the Q.Med slot's, because the two render side by
+side and any difference reads as a distinction being drawn. ⚠️ **AMENDED 2026-08-29.** It read *"Q.Arb — commenced August
+2026"*, and every stage form — "commenced", "in progress", "pathway", "not yet" —
+is now barred: Q.Arb is **held** (`AGENTS.md` §4), so a stage word understates a
+held credential. **The acquisition date is recorded in §4 and is not published.**
 
-**On the home page the fourth slot IS used, and it is not optional there.**
-`docs/01` §`/` says "Three slots"; §4's paired-disclosure condition is the higher
-authority and requires that wherever the site offers arbitration it "states
-plainly" the stage of the arc. `/` says *arbitrator* in its opening sentence, so
-the stage belongs on the same page rather than only in the footer. Rendered as
-value `Q.Arb` over label `Commenced August 2026` — the same wording, with the
-em-dash carried by the layout instead of by the string.
+**The fourth slot is no longer MANDATORY anywhere.** It was, on `/`, under §4's
+paired-disclosure condition — that page says *arbitrator* in its opening
+sentence and the stage had to appear beside the offering. The condition is
+dissolved. `/` keeps the slot because §4's substitution principle wants a fourth
+credential where the layout has one, not because anything requires it.
 
 The substitution principle (`AGENTS.md` §4): wherever the design wants a "how
 many", substitute a longer-arc credential. These are all true at launch and stay
@@ -269,23 +278,31 @@ redrawing the loop into a line.* First person: "my mark", not "our mark".
 as one arc, not three lists: a JD and active litigation exposure; a parallel
 career in machine learning and infrastructure engineering; a company run
 alongside the practice — §4's wording; "alongside both" was a concurrency claim
-the register does not make. The arc is the point — the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
-through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb is stated openly, **with Q.Arb described as
-commenced August 2026** and never as "in progress", which is looser than §4 and
-is barred by `docs/06`'s cutover checklist. The brief treats that arc as part of
-the story rather than something to obscure.
+the register does not make.
 
-The designation names expand as **Qualified Mediator**, **Qualified Arbitrator**
-and **Chartered Med-Arbitrator** — ADRIO's own forms, sourced in
-`docs/reference/adrio-designations.md`. Never "Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator".
+⚠️ **THE CREDENTIALING ARC IS STRUCK (2026-08-29, Pouya), AND SO IS `/about/`'s
+ARC SECTION.** This paragraph required *"the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
+through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb… stated openly, with Q.Arb described as commenced
+August 2026"*. Q.Arb is held; C.Med-Arb is off the site; there is no pathway.
+**The three-track story stays** — law, engineering, a company — because that arc
+is about his working life, not about a credential. Only the credentialing arc
+goes.
+
+The designation names expand as **Qualified Mediator** and **Qualified
+Arbitrator** — ADRIO's own forms, sourced in
+`docs/reference/adrio-designations.md`. *(**Chartered Med-Arbitrator** was here
+too; the designation is real and stays in `AGENTS.md` §11 as a definition, but
+nothing on the site names it.)* Never "Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator".
 
 Omit any section that would be empty. No "Speaking" heading until there is a
 talk to list.
 
 ### Mediation / Arbitration / Med-Arb
 Procedural, specific, unembellished. Name the rules. Describe the formats. State
-what a party should expect to do and when. On `/arbitration/`, state the Q.Arb
-position in plain terms — what is available now versus what follows designation.
+what a party should expect to do and when. *(This closed with "On
+`/arbitration/`, state the Q.Arb position in plain terms — what is available now
+versus what follows designation." Struck 2026-08-29: Q.Arb is held, and nothing
+follows designation.)*
 
 `/med-arb/` addresses the procedural-fairness objection directly: the same
 neutral who heard a party's confidential caucus later decides the matter. Do not
@@ -424,7 +441,14 @@ Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:
       grepped. **Keep the source's superlatives inside the quotation marks**
 - [ ] No superlatives and no guarantee language
 - [ ] No claim or implication of legal licensure anywhere (D13)
-- [ ] Q.Arb described as commenced August 2026, never as held or nearly complete
+- [ ] Q.Arb described as **held** — `Q.Arb (ADRIC / ADRIO)`, no acquisition
+      date, and never as "commenced", "in progress", "a pathway" or "not yet"
+      (amended 2026-08-29). `npm run check:claims` enforces the **stage words**
+      and a **date near `Q.Arb`** on `dist/`. It cannot catch a stage expressed
+      without naming the designation — the struck h1 "Available now, and open
+      about the stage" matches nothing — and that gap is `claims-auditor`'s to
+      close, not this checklist's
+- [ ] **C.Med-Arb appears nowhere** — struck entirely 2026-08-29
 - [ ] Nothing implies a firm, a team, or offices that do not exist
 - [ ] Contact page states that an inquiry creates no retainer and no
       mediator–party relationship

docs/04-seo-spec.md

@@ -105,16 +105,24 @@ JSON-LD only. Validate against Google's Rich Results Test before cutover.
 
 | Type | Where | Notes |
 |---|---|---|
-| `Person` | `/about/`, referenced site-wide | **Emitted:** `name`, `url`, `jobTitle`, `description`, `alumniOf` (Bond University), `knowsLanguage` (en, fa), `hasCredential` (Q.Med), `sameAs` (LinkedIn), `email`, `image`. **Emitted on `/about/` only:** `memberOf` — the four §4 memberships as `Organization` nodes (Q53, ruled 2026-08-28). `/` shows no memberships, so its Person node omits it: structured data represents the page it sits on. **Withheld:** `worksFor` — Q49(b) declined the row 2026-08-28 and Pouya confirmed the reading 2026-08-29, so it is settled rather than pending; `provider → Person → worksFor` would assert a same-entity claim §4 does not row. *(This enumeration listed `worksFor` as emitted while the same cell said it was withheld, and omitted `url` and `email`, which are — wrong in both directions. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies. Found by `adversarial-reviewer`.)* **CHANGED 2026-08-28 — Q47.** This row read *"`jobTitle` = 'Director of Firm Operations'; omit `worksFor`"*, which put the boutique title on a node whose `url` is this ADR practice's `/about/` — so a consumer could attach it to this entity. Pouya's ruling reframes the field: `jobTitle` describes **this practice**, not the boutique role, which D16 keeps unnamed. The visible role line is unchanged and still reads "Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation and ADR boutique". **THE VALUE IS `PRACTICE_JOB_TITLE` IN `src/data/site.ts` AND THIS ROW DOES NOT RESTATE IT** — §7's rule, applied to a string with a live revert trigger on it: this row carried the literal text for one pass, and `adversarial-reviewer` noted it would go stale the moment the constant moved. Cite, do not copy. **`worksFor` IS WITHHELD** — set for one pass under Q47, then reverted: `ProfessionalService.provider` is this Person, so `provider → Person → worksFor` asserts the same-entity claim `schema.ts` explicitly declines, and §4 says "alongside the practice" where the ruling says "operates through". **`memberOf` is emitted** — see the sentence above; Q53 closed 2026-08-28. *(This cell asserted `memberOf` was both emitted and withheld for one pass, which is the defect it already records itself being caught for on `worksFor`, in the opposite direction. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies.)* See `src/data/schema.ts` |
+| `Person` | `/about/`, referenced site-wide | **Emitted:** `name`, `url`, `jobTitle`, `description`, `alumniOf` (Bond University), `knowsLanguage` (en, fa), `hasCredential` (**Q.Med, Q.Arb** — both, since 2026-08-29), `sameAs` (LinkedIn), `email`, `image`. **Emitted on `/about/` only:** `memberOf` — the four §4 memberships as `Organization` nodes (Q53, ruled 2026-08-28). `/` shows no memberships, so its Person node omits it: structured data represents the page it sits on. **Withheld:** `worksFor` — Q49(b) declined the row 2026-08-28 and Pouya confirmed the reading 2026-08-29, so it is settled rather than pending; `provider → Person → worksFor` would assert a same-entity claim §4 does not row. *(This enumeration listed `worksFor` as emitted while the same cell said it was withheld, and omitted `url` and `email`, which are — wrong in both directions. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies. Found by `adversarial-reviewer`.)* **CHANGED 2026-08-28 — Q47.** This row read *"`jobTitle` = 'Director of Firm Operations'; omit `worksFor`"*, which put the boutique title on a node whose `url` is this ADR practice's `/about/` — so a consumer could attach it to this entity. Pouya's ruling reframes the field: `jobTitle` describes **this practice**, not the boutique role, which D16 keeps unnamed. The visible role line is unchanged and still reads "Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation and ADR boutique". **THE VALUE IS `PRACTICE_JOB_TITLE` IN `src/data/site.ts` AND THIS ROW DOES NOT RESTATE IT** — §7's rule, applied to a string with a live revert trigger on it: this row carried the literal text for one pass, and `adversarial-reviewer` noted it would go stale the moment the constant moved. Cite, do not copy. **`worksFor` IS WITHHELD** — set for one pass under Q47, then reverted: `ProfessionalService.provider` is this Person, so `provider → Person → worksFor` asserts the same-entity claim `schema.ts` explicitly declines, and §4 says "alongside the practice" where the ruling says "operates through". **`memberOf` is emitted** — see the sentence above; Q53 closed 2026-08-28. *(This cell asserted `memberOf` was both emitted and withheld for one pass, which is the defect it already records itself being caught for on `worksFor`, in the opposite direction. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies.)* See `src/data/schema.ts` |
 | `ProfessionalService` | Home | `areaServed` Toronto/Ontario, `serviceType` **Mediation / Commercial arbitration / Mediation-arbitration (med-arb)** — *scoped 2026-08-28 on `claims-auditor`'s finding; this row instructed the unscoped class form "Mediation/Arbitration" that Q39 struck and that `schema.ts` deliberately does not follow. Family arbitration carries prescribed training and has its own NOT OFFERED row, so unscoped "Arbitration" is the struck universal in a field nobody reads. Do not widen these strings without a §4 row to widen them from* — `provider` → Person, `priceRange` once `/fees/` is real. **Never `LegalService`** — schema.org defines it as a business providing legal advice and *representation*, which asserts in machine-readable form exactly what D13 bars and §4 Forbidden calls out |
 | `Service` | **`/mediation/`, `/arbitration/`, `/med-arb/`** and each practice page | `serviceType`, `provider` → Person, `areaServed`. **The Person node travels in the same `@graph`** so `provider: {'@id'}` resolves in one document rather than relying on a crawler joining two — `homeGraph`'s reasoning, applied. `serviceType` is scoped where §4 scopes it: *Commercial arbitration*, never a bare "Arbitration". No `BreadcrumbList` on the three — one hop from the root, no visible breadcrumb, and this spec requires the markup to match the visible one |
 | `Article` | Each article | `headline`, `description`, `datePublished`, `dateModified`, `author` → Person, `image` |
 | `BreadcrumbList` | All nested pages | Matches visible breadcrumbs |
 | `FAQPage` | `/for-parties/`, `/med-arb/` | Only where the visible page genuinely is Q&A. Never fabricate questions to farm a rich result |
 
-**`hasCredential` must reflect reality.** Q.Med is held. Q.Arb is not. Marking an
-unheld credential as held in structured data is a misrepresentation that happens
-to be machine-readable.
+**`hasCredential` must reflect reality.** ⚠️ **Q.Med AND Q.Arb are both held as
+of 2026-08-29** (`AGENTS.md` §4) and the field carries both — it was Q.Med-only
+while Q.Arb was a commenced pathway. The rule is unchanged and cuts both ways:
+marking an unheld credential as held is a misrepresentation that happens to be
+machine-readable, and **omitting a held one understates the record in a field
+whose whole meaning is "holds"**. `personNode` maps `CREDENTIALS.designations`
+rather than indexing it, so a designation added to that constant reaches the
+graph automatically. **That links the CONSTANT to the graph, not §4 to the
+graph** — a designation added to §4 and not to `src/data/site.ts` still drifts
+silently, and no mechanism catches it. `src/data/schema.ts` states the condition
+in full; this sentence overstated it for one pass.
 
 ## Crawlability
 

docs/06-deployment.md

@@ -374,8 +374,14 @@ Then invalidate `/*`.
       question
 - [ ] No `TODO(pouya)` remains in any shipped page
 - [ ] No matter counts, rates, dollar figures, or testimonials anywhere
-- [ ] Q.Arb described as **commenced August 2026** everywhere it appears — §4's
-      wording, not the looser "in progress"
+- [ ] Q.Arb described as **held** everywhere it appears — `Q.Arb (ADRIC /
+      ADRIO)`, no acquisition date. **Every stage form is barred**: "commenced",
+      "in progress", "pathway", "not yet" (amended 2026-08-29). `npm run
+      check:claims` enforces the **stage words** and a **date near the
+      designation**, on `dist/`, in both deploy paths. It cannot catch a stage
+      expressed without naming the designation; that gap is `claims-auditor`'s to
+      close, and it is stated in the pattern itself
+- [ ] **C.Med-Arb appears nowhere in `dist/`** — struck entirely 2026-08-29
 - [ ] `/fees/` carries the rates confirmed in D14 and `docs/07-fees.md`, or the page does not ship
 - [ ] Privacy policy matches the backend as actually built
 

docs/07-fees.md

@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Three observations that drive the recommendation.
 ## Where this practice should sit
 
 **Not at the floor.** Pouya's stack — JD, an operating role inside a litigation
-and ADR boutique, Q.Med held, Q.Arb commenced, and a working engineering career —
+and ADR boutique, Q.Med and Q.Arb held, and a working engineering career —
 is not a junior generalist profile. Entering at roster rates would anchor him
 into SABS volume work and make the commercial rate very hard to raise later.
 Published rates are close to unrecoverable once set: raising them looks
@@ -111,12 +111,16 @@ line was unscoped, and every §4 arbitration row is scoped commercial with famil
 arbitration separately NOT OFFERED — Q39's struck universal.)*
 *(This line previously read "sole appointments follow the Q.Arb designation",
 which understated the offering, and carried a caveat against a since-closed
-Q36.)* Whatever `/fees/` says about arbitration must state the Q.Arb stage
-plainly alongside it — §4 Offerings, "neither half may be dropped": the Q.Arb
-**pathway** commenced August 2026, with C.Med-Arb as the endpoint. *("pathway",
-not "designation" — a designation that commenced reads as held, which §4
-Forbidden bars. Corrected 2026-08-28 on `claims-auditor`'s finding.)* See
-`03-content-spec.md` for the wording.
+Q36.)*
+
+⚠️ **`/fees/` HAS NO CREDENTIALING DISCLOSURE TO MAKE (amended 2026-08-29).**
+This paragraph required that whatever the page says about arbitration *"must
+state the Q.Arb stage plainly alongside it — §4 Offerings, 'neither half may be
+dropped'"*. **Q.Arb is held and that condition is dissolved.** `/fees/` is
+unbuilt (step 9), so this is the one place the amendment lands before the page
+exists rather than after — do not build the page against the struck form. `03-content-spec.md`'s
+model sentence is now the scope half only — the stage half was struck with the
+paragraph this one used to point at.
 
 | Item | Fee |
 |---|---|

docs/reference/adrio-designations.md

@@ -166,9 +166,11 @@ designation structure, not about Pouya.
 > FALSIFIED IT WAS ONE THIS FILE HAD ALREADY FETCHED.** It was headed *"the two
 > Chartered pages state a retention condition; the Q page does not"* and argued a
 > **Qualified-vs-Chartered** asymmetry. There are **three** Chartered pages. The
-> count was never run on `chartered-med-arbitrator-c-med-arb/` — the designation
-> §4 records as the practice's stated goal, and therefore the one most
-> load-bearing for Q48. Found by `claims-auditor`, 2026-08-28.
+> count was never run on `chartered-med-arbitrator-c-med-arb/` — at the time,
+> the designation §4 recorded as the practice's stated goal, and therefore the
+> one most load-bearing for Q48. Found by `claims-auditor`, 2026-08-28.
+> *(That §4 row was **struck 2026-08-29** — C.Med-Arb is off the site entirely.
+> The counting defect this paragraph records is unaffected.)*
 
 Counted on the extracted text of **all four** designation pages:
 
@@ -220,8 +222,11 @@ both are quotable in principle.
 (*"best", "leading", "top-rated"*), and the reason given there is not only
 verifiability — it is that *"they read as insecure to the audience this site is
 for"*. A superlative does not stop being one because a third party said it first,
-and the credential arc does not need it: **"the designation this practice is built
-toward"** is Pouya's own stated goal and has a §4 row.
+and the copy did not need it. *(This sentence justified the superlative's
+removal by pointing at **"the designation this practice is built toward"** as
+"Pouya's own stated goal" with "a §4 row". **That row was struck 2026-08-29** and
+the phrase is off the site. The reason superlatives stay inside quotation marks
+is unchanged and never depended on it.)*
 
 ---
 
@@ -239,8 +244,10 @@ toward"** is Pouya's own stated goal and has a §4 row.
 
 **Does not establish:**
 
-- **Anything about Pouya.** Not that he holds Q.Med, not that he has commenced
-  Q.Arb, not that he is a member of ADRIO. Those are §4 Verified rows and this
+- **Anything about Pouya.** Not that he holds Q.Med, not that he holds Q.Arb,
+  not that he is a member of ADRIO. *(This read "not that he has **commenced**
+  Q.Arb" until 2026-08-30 — a struck stage form surviving in the file an
+  implementer opens to write designation copy.)* Those are §4 Verified rows and this
   file is not a substitute for one. The standard Pouya ratified is exactly this
   split: *"§11 Glossary is the source for DEFINITIONAL expansions; §4 remains
   the only source for claims about Pouya."*