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