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/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