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/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."*