Pouya/adr-sml
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: rule Q62 by stating the truth; strike the /med-arb/ gloss; re-stamp R18

Browse Source 
Pouya's four rulings of 2026-09-01, applied 2026-09-02.

Q62 — RULED "state the truth", not "remove the access". /legal/privacy/
now says two people can read the intake table, names their role, and adds
the two stronger facts the false sentence had crowded out: the handler
role holds PutItem only, and adr-sml-deploy is implicitDeny on all seven
read and write actions. Wording is subject to Pouya's read-through —
Q63(a), with a TODO(pouya) beside the copy.

The ruling named one sentence; a vocabulary sweep found the falsehood in
three places, and the audit then found two more. Five paragraphs now
answer "who can see it" and change together.

The tripwire stays permanently, per ruling, and grew from two
alternatives to five. Every alternative is one string that reached dist/.
Proven both ways against the pre-correction page rebuilt from bd282aa:
exit 1 with 5 matches at dist/legal/privacy/index.html:54,67,67,68,72;
exit 0 on the corrected page, self-test 12 patterns / 36 approved
strings.

/med-arb/ — the gloss is struck with no replacement, per ruling. The
strike left "the section above" pointing at the ADRIC rule set and "the
agreement" with no antecedent; both fixed. The bare designations line
sitting under ADRIC's quoted competence requirement is also struck, which
goes beyond the ruling and is flagged for Pouya.

R18 — re-stamped, two-tier: (a)(c)(d) re-verified against a source,
(b)(e)(f)(g) held on a cadence judgement. All seven hold, no shipped
sentence changed. R18's trigger had NO cutover checklist item and had
stamped five extracts of seven; both fixed. Candidate limb (h) flagged.

R10 — fired and unsatisfied; left open on instruction.

The evidence behind the new privacy sentence was weaker than the
sentence. Re-measured: 33 of 33 roles simulated (23 of 26 carried inline
policies nobody had read; the two CDK lookup roles can read the table),
four trust policies, the CloudFormation escalation path for all five
users, 0 federated providers, root recorded. Every read path terminates
at the same two people.

Two review rounds, 36 findings. 35 fixed, 1 declined. Five of round 2's
were defects in round 1's own fixes; stopped at two per D19.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5
This commit is contained in:
Pouya Lajevardi
2026-09-02 07:59:50 -04:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent bd282aa47d
commit 6aaf089b05
16 changed files with 1181 additions and 126 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
src/pages/legal/privacy.astro
+92 -38
View File
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ const RETENTION_MONTHS = 24;
/** Bump this on ANY substantive edit. A privacy policy with a stale date is a
* policy a reader cannot tell they are reading an old version of. */
const LAST_UPDATED = '31 August 2026';
const LAST_UPDATED = '2 September 2026';
/* Rendered from the form's own field list, so the two cannot drift. `consent`
and the honeypot are absent from `INTAKE_FIELDS` deliberately and are
@@ -122,10 +122,30 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
<ul>
{COLLECTED.map((label) => <li>{label}</li>)}
</ul>
{
/* ⚠️ DO NOT WRITE "your IP address" HERE, AND DO NOT CONCLUDE ANYTHING
ABOUT WHETHER THE ADDRESS IDENTIFIES ANYONE. The handler stores
`requestContext.http.sourceIp` — behind the `/api/*` behaviour that
is a CloudFront edge, so the expected value is Amazon's. **Expected,
not measured:** `docs/09` Part 7.2 measures it at cutover and
enumerates three outcomes, one of which is that the reader's own
address does land. This copy therefore states only why the field is
kept, which is true in all three. A previous form hedged "usually
not yours" and then asserted "not precise enough to identify you" —
false in exactly the branch the hedge admitted. `claims-auditor`,
then `adversarial-reviewer` round 2. */
}
<p>
Submitting the form also records the date and time, your IP address
and your browser's user-agent string. Those three are kept for
investigating abuse of the form and are not used for anything else.
Submitting the form also records the date and time and your browser's
user-agent string. Those two are kept for investigating abuse of the
form and are not used for anything else.
</p>
<p>
It also records the network address the request arrived from. This
site sits behind a content delivery network, so that address is
normally the network's own rather than your connection's — which is
why it is kept simply because it arrives with the request, and not as
a way of identifying anyone.
</p>
<p>
Nothing else on this site collects personal information. There is no
@@ -204,9 +224,10 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
what they keep.
</p>
<p>
No one else receives it. There is no CRM, no mailing list, no
analytics on the submission, and no assistant or outside
administrator.
No one else is sent it. There is no CRM, no mailing list and no
analytics on the submission. Who can read what is stored is a
different question from who it is sent to, and it is answered under
"Who can see it" below.
</p>
<h2>How long it is kept</h2>
@@ -236,43 +257,76 @@ const COLLECTED = INTAKE_FIELDS.map((field) => field.label);
<h2>Who can see it</h2>
{
/* ⚠️ THIS SAID "Nobody else has access" AND THE SECTION TWO ABOVE HAD
JUST NAMED GOOGLE. The Google correction was applied to §Where it is
stored and not swept into the section actually headed with the
question a reader asks — so the page answered "who can see the names
of the opposing parties I gave you?" with *nobody else* under that
heading and *Google* under a different one. Fixing one section and
not the section that answers the same question is the sweep failure
`CLAUDE.md` describes. Found by `adversarial-reviewer` round 2. */
/* ⚠️ FIVE PARAGRAPHS ANSWER "WHO CAN SEE IT" AND THEY CHANGE
TOGETHER: this section's four — the count, the measured enumeration,
the two narrow credentials, the three copies — and §Where it is
stored's last one. Every defect here has been a partial sweep of that
set, and there have been four.
**The enumeration paragraph is the one that goes stale on its own**,
because it is a claim about the present state of an AWS account: §12
**R21** is its trigger, and
`docs/reference/intake-table-access-verification.md` holds the
commands. `check-claims.mjs`'s `sole-administrator-q62` pattern is a
permanent bar on the old shape returning (Pouya, ruled 2026-09-01). */
}
{
/* TODO(pouya): the sentence below is FALSE as at 2026-09-01 and this
page must not go public until you rule — §9 Q62. The AWS account has
an `admins` IAM group carrying `AdministratorAccess` with TWO
members, you and one other person, and
`simulate-principal-policy` returns **allowed** for
`dynamodb:GetItem`/`Query`/`Scan` on this table for both.
Evidence and commands:
`docs/reference/intake-table-access-verification.md`.
THE QUESTION: do you remove that access — which may be the same
co-administrator Q23's Gitea instance depends on, so it is not free
— or does this paragraph state the true number? Nothing here may be
softened into "authorised administrators": on this page a reader is
entitled to the specific, and a true vacancy is worse than a false
specific only in that it cannot be caught.
Raised by `claims-auditor`, D20 cutover audit, finding 8. */
/* TODO(pouya): TWO THINGS, BOTH FOR YOUR READ-THROUGH — §9 Q63.
(1) APPROVE THE WORDING BELOW. Your ruling settled what it must say;
you reserved the wording. Nothing else gates it.
(2) WHO ELSE CAN READ `info@smlcompany.ca`? The paragraph below says
"anyone who can reach that mailbox", which is true whatever the
answer — but §7 records the mail host and the SES identities and NOT
the mailbox's access list, so this repository cannot state the
number a reader of a privacy policy is entitled to. If the Workspace
is administered by anyone else, or the address is a shared alias,
say so and this becomes specific like the table sentence above it.
Raised by `claims-auditor` and `adversarial-reviewer`, D20 cutover
pass, 2026-09-02. */
}
<p>
I can. The table is reachable by the function that writes to it and by
one administrative account, which is mine — nobody else has access to
the table. There is no team, no assistant and no external
administrator.
Two people can. The table sits in an Amazon Web Services account that
also runs systems unrelated to this practice, and that account has two
administrators — me, and one other person who administers it with me.
Administrative access to the account carries the ability to read the
table, so both of us can read what you send. I would rather tell you
that than give you the tidier answer.
</p>
<p>
The one other place a copy exists is the notification email, which
sits in the Google Workspace mailbox named above. So the honest answer
to "who can see this" is: me, and Google as the company that runs my
mail.
No one outside those two people has been granted access to the table,
and that is measured rather than assumed: every user and every role in
the account was simulated against this table, and the only ones that
come back able to read it lead to those same two people. Amazon Web
Services operates the table, as <em>Where it is stored</em> above says —
a company that runs a database is not someone who has been given access
to it, and both of those are true at once.
</p>
<p>
Two things in the system are narrower than I am, and they are worth
stating because they are the part you cannot check for yourself. The
function that receives the form
<strong>can only add a record — it cannot read the table back.</strong
> And the credential that publishes this website has
<strong>no access to the table at all</strong>, for reading or for
writing.
</p>
{
/* ⚠️ THREE COPIES, NOT TWO, AND THE THIRD IS THE READER'S OWN. This
said "the one other place a copy exists" and named only my mailbox —
while the handler puts the whole submission into the confirmation it
sends the inquirer, under "What you sent:" (the second
`SendEmailCommand` in `backend/intake/handler.mjs`). So a copy sits
with the reader's provider, which §Where it is stored already tells
them. An absolute enumeration standing one section from the page's
own counter-example is what Q62 was; this is the same shape and it
was introduced by Q62's own fix. Found by `claims-auditor`. */
}
<p>
There are therefore three copies of what you send. The record in the
table, which the two people above can read. The notification in my own
mailbox, which is on Google Workspace — so Google holds a copy of
whatever you sent me, and so does anyone who can reach that mailbox.
And the confirmation that went to you, which sits with whoever runs
your email; that copy is in your hands rather than mine.
</p>
<h2>Cookies and analytics</h2>
src/pages/med-arb.astro
+19 -25
View File
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ import Undertaking from '../components/Undertaking.astro';
import { getImage } from 'astro:assets';
import ogDefault from '../assets/og-portrait.jpg';
import { medArbGraph } from '../data/schema';
import { CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS, DESIGNATIONS_HELD_LINE } from '../data/site';
import { CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS } from '../data/site';
const ldImage = await getImage({
src: ogDefault,
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ const graph = medArbGraph({
<BaseLayout
title="Med-Arb · Pouya Lajevardi · What It Is and When It Fits"
description="Med-arb is mediation that converts to arbitration if it does not resolve. What it is, how it differs from arb-med, the fairness objection, and when it fits."
description="Med-arb is mediation that converts to arbitration if it does not resolve. What it is, that it is not arb-med, the fairness objection, and when it fits."
jsonLd={graph}
>
{/* ---- 1. Hero -------------------------------------------------------- */}
@@ -238,38 +238,32 @@ const graph = medArbGraph({
{/* ---- 6. Why this practice -------------------------------------------- */}
{
/* ⚠️ THIS SECTION MUST NOT ANSWER THE ADRIC COMPETENCE QUOTATION ABOVE IT.
For one pass it did: the heading read "Med-arb asks one neutral to be
competent at both" — a restatement, in this site's voice, of ADRIC's
"requires a high level of practitioner competence" quoted in the section
immediately above — and the designations then answered it by adjacency.
**The source answers its own sentence with a DIFFERENT designation**: the
same ADRIC page points at the Chartered Med-Arb and a Med-Arb Foundational
Course, and `docs/reference/adrio-designations.md` Finding 3 calls the
Q-level designations "an intermediate step". So the page was borrowing a
third party's competence standard and supplying an answer that party does
not give. `claims-auditor`, round-2 audit, 2026-08-30 — the gloss lens.
The heading and lede now state what this practice holds and offers, with
no competence proposition and no bridge to the quotation above. */
/* ⚠️ THIS SECTION MAKES NO CLAIM ABOUT COMPETENCE AND NO CLAIM ABOUT WHAT
MED-ARB IS, AND BOTH SILENCES ARE DELIBERATE. §Rules above quotes ADRIC
requiring "a high level of practitioner competence", and ADRIC answers its
own sentence with the Chartered Med-Arb and a Foundational Course —
neither held, and C.Med-Arb is struck from this site entirely (§4). So
anything in here that reads as meeting that standard is borrowing a third
party's bar and answering it in this site's voice. That has now been
removed three times: from the heading (2026-08-30), from the definitional
gloss (Pouya's ruling, 2026-09-01) and from the bare designations line
that was left sitting directly beneath the quotation (2026-09-02).
**Do not refill this paragraph, and do not restate a designation here** —
/about/ publishes them, and the JSON-LD carries them. */
}
<section class="section section-alt reveal">
<div class="wrap">
<div class="section-head">
<SectionHeading eyebrow="Why this practice" level={2}>
<span slot="heading">Both halves, in one practice.</span>
<span slot="heading">Both processes, in one practice.</span>
</SectionHeading>
</div>
<div class="prose">
<p>
{DESIGNATIONS_HELD_LINE}. Med-arb is not a third service bolted onto
mediation and arbitration; it is the two of them run under one
agreement, in the order the agreement sets.
</p>
<p>
I accept med-arb appointments now, in commercial matters. The section
above is the part to read before proposing one: the agreement does the
work, and it does it before the mediation starts.
I accept med-arb appointments now, in commercial matters. The three
commitments above are the part to read before proposing one: the
med-arb agreement does the work, and it does it before the mediation
starts.
</p>
<p class="onward">
<a href="/mediation/">Mediation &rarr;</a>