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/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 |
 |---|---|