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

src/components/CredentialRow.astro

@@ -13,11 +13,10 @@
  * slots come from src/data/site.ts, which mirrors §4; nothing is typed here.
  *
  * <dl> RATHER THAN A DIV GRID. Each pair is a term and its description, which
- * is what a description list is. It also fixes the reading order: a screen
- * reader gets "Q.Arb — Commenced August 2026" as one associated pair, which is
- * §4's paired-disclosure condition surviving into assistive technology rather
- * than being a visual arrangement only. Wrapping each dt/dd pair in a <div>
- * inside <dl> is valid HTML and is what makes the grid tractable.
+ * is what a description list is, and it fixes the reading order: a screen
+ * reader gets "Q.Arb — ADRIC / ADRIO" as one associated pair rather than four
+ * values then four labels. Wrapping each dt/dd pair in a <div> inside <dl> is
+ * valid HTML and is what makes the grid tractable.
  */
 interface Props {
   slots: ReadonlyArray<{ value: string; label: string }>;
@@ -45,9 +44,14 @@ const { slots } = Astro.props;
        This read `repeat(auto-fit, minmax(11rem, 1fr))` under a comment saying
        "two up on a phone, four up where there is room". `adversarial-reviewer`
        measured it: at 390px the resolved template was a SINGLE 342px track and
-       all four items stacked, running the band ~430px tall — with
-       `Q.Arb / Commenced August 2026`, which §4's paired-disclosure condition
-       puts on this page, at the bottom of it. The arithmetic is not subtle: two
+       all four items stacked, running the band ~430px tall. The longest label in
+       the row is and remains `Legal training and engineering practice` (Q37, 39
+       chars — see below), which is what drives the track; the fourth slot's
+       label went from `Commenced August 2026` (21) to `ADRIC / ADRIO
+       designation` (25), so it got slightly LONGER and is still well inside
+       that 39. *(A previous version of this comment said "shorter". It was not
+       measured; `claims-auditor` counted the characters.)* The arithmetic is not
+       subtle: two
        tracks at an 11rem (176px) floor plus a 24px gap need 376px and the
        container is 342px, so `auto-fit` correctly dropped to one. A
        measured-sounding comment that was false is this project's own named