feat: rule Q58 and close Q57; §4 lists all six areas; docs/03's checklist cites §4 instead of restating it
Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s
Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s
Four rulings from Pouya, plus what implementing them turned up. Q58 — RULED, and he attributed the ambiguity to his own document: "3.5 was meant as the TOTAL time committed, of which 2 is preparation — leaving 1.5 hours in the room. Your arithmetic caught it: if prep sat inside, 3.5 and 7 wouldn't be exactly 2x, because preparation doesn't scale with session length." The card now reads: half day up to 3 hours of session, fee includes up to 2 hours of preparation, $2,000; full day up to 6 hours, up to 3 hours of preparation, $4,000. docs/07's own research table corroborates 3 and 6 — Patey and Zuber both publish those hours, and ADR Chambers' roster rate counts preparation separately from "up to three hours of mediation". One provenance note under R14: he recalled "all or part of 3 hours" as their wording; the committed extract carries the hours but not the phrase, so docs/07 cites the hours and attributes the phrase to nobody. Two things fell out of the ruling that the instruction did not name, and both were defects. docs/07 §All parameters confirmed was itself prescribing the flat "including 2 hours of preparation" — the sentence /for-parties/ was built against, so the spec was generating the defect. And the cap had to reach the copy: "including up to 2 hours". FEES.mediation.*.hours is corrected 3.5 -> 3 and 7 -> 6; it had no consumer in src/ while the question was open, which is the only reason no page was ever wrong. /fees/ is unblocked for step 9 on the question Q58 asked. Q57 — CLOSED with no seventh undertaking. "A reader assumes the outcome, and the obvious undertaking adds nothing a reader doesn't already infer." The TODO(pouya) is replaced by the ruling where the question was; src/ now carries zero live TODO(pouya) markers. §4's mediation row lists all six published areas. Q56's ruling had named five, which was four areas plus the word "commercial" — a scope descriptor, not a seventh area. The hedge is struck on his instruction; the clause saying the six are not the authorised subject-matter list is restored, because his ruling supplied a correct value and did not close Q35(c)'s class. Split-stamped. docs/03's compliance checklist now names what to look for on a page and which §4 row decides it, never the bar's own wording. 12 items before, 12 after — a structural fix, not a coverage change. Thirteen review findings across two rounds, all applied, none declined. Three were mine to own. The capped-form rule was written and then applied to one surface: /mediation/ shipped an uncapped form in words no barred-string grep could reach, site.ts quoted a docs/07 sentence Q58 had just deleted, and §9's Q15/Q16/Q17 row prescribed the flat form — which is what a later implementer building /fees/ reads. A derived fee term was asserted as applied fact in the document that is the authority on money: "overtime begins after 3 h and 6 h" is in no ruling. Struck, and opened as Q59. And round 2 caught the arithmetic in round 1's own fix. The full-day route is flat $4,000 until hour 6, so generalising it as 500n+1000 for all n>=3 was valid only from 6 h, and "cheaper by $500 at every length" was wrong across the whole 3-6 h band. The real spread is $2,000 at three hours narrowing to $500 from six on — up to four times larger, and largest exactly where a half-day booking overruns. Written into docs/07 §Recorded dissent and §12's R5 row, which is where the 12-month fee review will read it. Round 1's fix for the missing consequence also published the overtime rate on a page that now states an unambiguous cap, defining the trigger by adjacency with no other quantity for it to attach to; the rate came off the page. R11 at the step 6 -> 7 boundary: 13 of 14 pins current. §7's TypeScript hold named one gate and there are two — typescript-eslint requires <6.1.0, tighter than @astrojs/check, so the recorded removal trigger was unreachable. Both are now named. Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0, build 0 (14 pages), check:claims 0, npm audit 0, minifier tripwire clean, zero JS shipped, all copy present with JavaScript disabled. Lighthouse not run — tool unavailable until step 7. 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
co-authored by
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5
parent
13b97841b9
commit
6cfe69033f
+92
-54
@@ -96,12 +96,22 @@ detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
|
||||
DO NOT MIRROR THIS SCOPE ONTO MEDIATION.** The scope above exists because of a
|
||||
**legal gate**: family arbitration in Ontario requires prescribed training, so
|
||||
"in commercial matters" is load-bearing there. **Mediation has no such gate,
|
||||
§4's mediation row is unscoped on purpose.** Pouya's list of what he mediates
|
||||
— *"commercial, construction, insurance/SABS, shareholder and cross-cultural
|
||||
matters"* — is **illustrative of breadth, not a closed set**: the site
|
||||
publishes **six** areas and every one of them offers mediation
|
||||
(`src/data/practice-pages.ts`), technology and energy included. Do not read it
|
||||
as the authorised subject-matter list; §4's Q35 gate governs that.
|
||||
§4's mediation row is unscoped on purpose.** **He mediates in all six published
|
||||
practice areas** — construction, technology, energy, insurance, shareholder,
|
||||
cross-cultural — and §4's row now enumerates them (`PRACTICE_AREAS` in
|
||||
`src/data/site.ts`), each named under **Q35(c)'s subject-matter publication
|
||||
gate**. ⚠️ **The six are the PUBLISHED areas, not the authorised
|
||||
subject-matter list, and Q35(c)'s gate is not spent by having been used six
|
||||
times.** A seventh may be named where it clears that gate.
|
||||
|
||||
*(Q56's ruling had named five, which was four of the six areas plus the word
|
||||
"commercial", and this block called the list "illustrative of breadth, not a
|
||||
closed set" for one day. Pouya struck the hedge on 2026-08-31: "the register
|
||||
should match the site; 'illustrative' is a hedge covering a gap that has a
|
||||
correct value." Technology and energy are the two that were missing. The
|
||||
non-exhaustiveness clause was struck with the hedge in the same pass and
|
||||
restored the same day — his ruling supplied a correct value, it did not close
|
||||
the class.)*
|
||||
|
||||
The site-wide *"Commercial Mediation"* framing was **under-describing the
|
||||
offering**, and it was corrected rather than ratified as positioning. The
|
||||
@@ -461,57 +471,85 @@ Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:
|
||||
|
||||
## Compliance checklist — before any page ships
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ **EVERY ITEM HERE THAT BARS SOMETHING CITES ITS `AGENTS.md` §4 ROW. IT DOES
|
||||
NOT RESTATE IT — STRUCTURAL FIX, Pouya, 2026-08-31, after the third instance.**
|
||||
|
||||
His ruling: *"the checklist must CITE the §4 row, not restate it. Same
|
||||
single-source rule as §7 and operational facts."* **This file is what gets
|
||||
grepped; §4 is what is correct.** Three times a line here paraphrased a §4 row,
|
||||
dropped a qualifier, and then flagged the copy a spec **requires** — *"no dollar
|
||||
figures"* for §4's *"attached to **past matters**"*, which forbade the rate card
|
||||
D8 commits to; *"no testimonials"* for §4's bar on endorsements **of the practice
|
||||
or of Pouya**, which forbade the institutional quotations `docs/01` directs; and
|
||||
the licence-capacity item, which rejected the exact sentence the section above
|
||||
exists to bless. Each was caught by review, never by the checklist, and the row
|
||||
was never wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
**So an item below names what to look for on the page, and which row decides it.
|
||||
Not both halves of the rule.**
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every factual claim appears in `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified
|
||||
- [ ] No matter counts, settlement rates, claimed matter values, or
|
||||
time-to-award stats. ⚠️ **SCOPED 2026-08-30, and it read "dollar figures"
|
||||
until then.** What this bars is the **fabricated-statistic family** the old
|
||||
site carried — *"420+ matters"*, *"$3.8B resolved"*, *"93% settled"*. It
|
||||
does **not** bar the **rate card**: D8 commits to publishing it in full and
|
||||
D14 confirms the numbers `[verified 2026-08-26 — Pouya]`, so `/fees/`
|
||||
publishes all of them and `/for-parties/` publishes the two mediation rates
|
||||
because `docs/01` requires that page to answer *"what it costs"*. Read
|
||||
literally, the old wording forbade the page the architecture spec commits
|
||||
to. **§4's own row was never wrong** — it reads *"Aggregate value resolved;
|
||||
any dollar figure attached to **past matters**"*, and this checklist
|
||||
dropped the qualifier when it mirrored it. A duplicated fact is a fact that
|
||||
will eventually be wrong in one place, and the copy that goes stale is the
|
||||
one nobody re-reads. **Third instance of an unscoped checklist line flagging the copy the
|
||||
spec requires** — the other two are the testimonials item
|
||||
immediately below and the capacity-phrasing item further down, and in both
|
||||
cases the checklist is what gets grepped
|
||||
- [ ] No testimonials, endorsements, or third-party quotes **about the practice
|
||||
or about Pouya**. Scope matters: `docs/01` §`/med-arb/` **directs** the page
|
||||
to quote ADRIC's own framing of med-arb, and `/mediation/` and
|
||||
`/arbitration/` name published rule sets. Quoting an institution about
|
||||
**its own rules**, from a committed source, is not an endorsement — and an
|
||||
unscoped version of this line flags the copy the spec requires. Same shape
|
||||
as the "legal advice" item corrected on 2026-08-28, in the file that gets
|
||||
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 **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
|
||||
- [ ] **Numbers that describe the practice** — any count, rate, percentage, time
|
||||
or dollar figure about matters, hours, years, or outcomes. Decided by §4
|
||||
Forbidden's *counts of matters closed / hours mediated / years in ADR
|
||||
practice*, *settlement rates, resolution percentages, median time to
|
||||
award*, *aggregate value resolved; any dollar figure attached to past
|
||||
matters*, and *named or describable past matters*. `npm run check:claims`
|
||||
`counts-and-tenure` sweeps `dist/`. ⚠️ **The rate card is a different
|
||||
thing and no row reaches it:** D8 commits to publishing it in full, D14
|
||||
confirms the figures `[verified 2026-08-26 — Pouya]`, and `docs/01`
|
||||
requires `/for-parties/` to answer *"what it costs"*. A published **price**
|
||||
is an offer; a published **statistic about past matters** is what the old
|
||||
site fabricated
|
||||
- [ ] **Third-party voices** — decided by §4 Forbidden's *testimonials,
|
||||
endorsements, quotes from counterparties*. ⚠️ **Scope is the whole
|
||||
question:** that row reaches a third party praising the practice or Pouya.
|
||||
It does not reach an institution quoted **about its own rules**, from a
|
||||
committed source — which `docs/01` §`/med-arb/` **directs**, and which
|
||||
`/mediation/`, `/arbitration/` and `/process/` all do. **Keep the source's
|
||||
superlatives inside the quotation marks**
|
||||
- [ ] **Superlatives and guarantee language** — decided by §4 Forbidden's
|
||||
*guarantees of outcome, or superlatives*. `check:claims` `superlatives`
|
||||
sweeps `dist/`
|
||||
- [ ] **Licensure, asserted or implied** — decided by §4 Forbidden's two
|
||||
licensure rows and D13. The second of the two is the one that catches
|
||||
copy: it reaches phrasing that *implies* entitlement without saying so.
|
||||
`check:claims` `licensure-of-pouya` and `acting-for-a-party` sweep `dist/`
|
||||
- [ ] **The licence-capacity question answered in EITHER direction** — see *When
|
||||
a fact is `[unestablished]`* above, and §4's own note that its two
|
||||
licensure rows are verified **directives not to publish**, not a verified
|
||||
status. Check for *cannot*, *do not*, *am not*, *not permitted*, *not
|
||||
qualified* **attached to giving legal advice, practising law, or holding a
|
||||
licence.** ⚠️ **The objection is to answering the capacity question, not
|
||||
to the words themselves** — the approved sentence contains "do not" and
|
||||
passes: *"I act as a neutral. I do not act for a party in a matter I take,
|
||||
and each party should have their own legal advice."* That is **role
|
||||
conduct**, which he may state freely. `check:claims` `capacity-phrasing`
|
||||
sweeps `dist/`
|
||||
- [ ] **Q.Arb** — decided by §4's Q.Arb Verified row and its Forbidden row. The
|
||||
publishable form is `Q.Arb (ADRIC / ADRIO)`; the acquisition date is
|
||||
recorded in §4 and is not published. `check:claims` `q-arb-as-a-stage`
|
||||
enforces the stage words and a date near the designation, 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 belongs to the cutover claims pass, not to this checklist
|
||||
- [ ] **C.Med-Arb appears nowhere** — decided by §4's struck *C.Med-Arb as a
|
||||
long-term designation goal* row, which carries the reasoning and the
|
||||
deliberate deviation from the strategy brief. `check:claims`
|
||||
`c-med-arb-struck` sweeps `dist/`
|
||||
- [ ] **A firm, a team, or offices that do not exist** — §4 Forbidden rows the
|
||||
specific false artefacts (*"Since 2009"*, *"sixteen years"*, the London
|
||||
and New York offices, the company number, and the fictitious founder);
|
||||
the general rule is **D16** — the boutique is never named, and the
|
||||
publishable form is *Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation
|
||||
and ADR boutique*. `check:claims` `fabricated-founder` sweeps `dist/`
|
||||
- [ ] Contact page states that an inquiry creates no retainer and no
|
||||
mediator–party relationship
|
||||
- [ ] Any comparative claim is factual and verifiable
|
||||
- [ ] No sentence answers the licence-capacity question in **either** direction —
|
||||
see *When a fact is `[unestablished]`* above. Check for *cannot*, *do not*,
|
||||
*am not*, *not permitted*, *not qualified* **attached to giving legal
|
||||
advice, practising law, or holding a licence.** The objection is to
|
||||
answering the *capacity* question, not to the words themselves — the
|
||||
approved sentence contains "do not" and passes: *"I act as a neutral. I do
|
||||
not act for a party in a matter I take, and each party should have their
|
||||
own legal advice."* That is **role conduct**, which he may state freely.
|
||||
*(This item shipped unscoped for one pass and `adversarial-reviewer` showed
|
||||
it would fail the exact sentence the section exists to bless — and the
|
||||
checklist is what gets grepped.)*
|
||||
- [ ] Any comparative claim is factual and verifiable — **Q41(b), closed
|
||||
2026-08-27**, which struck a comparative claim about other neutrals from
|
||||
this file's own positioning statement. Pouya: *"comparative claims must be
|
||||
factual and verifiable… assert his capability, not the field's
|
||||
incapability."*
|
||||
- [ ] Abbreviations expanded on §11 Glossary's authority only — and expansions
|
||||
for the five ADR designations checked against
|
||||
`docs/reference/adrio-designations.md`, not from memory. "Chartered
|
||||
|
||||
+123
-4
@@ -97,11 +97,95 @@ All figures **plus HST**.
|
||||
|
||||
| Item | Fee |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Half day — up to 3.5 h, including 2 h preparation | **$2,000** |
|
||||
| Full day — up to 7 h, including 3 h preparation | **$4,000** |
|
||||
| Half day — up to 3 hours of session. Fee includes up to 2 hours of preparation | **$2,000** |
|
||||
| Full day — up to 6 hours of session. Fee includes up to 3 hours of preparation | **$4,000** |
|
||||
| Each party beyond two | **$500** |
|
||||
| Overtime, per hour | **$500** |
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ **THE TWO ROWS ABOVE WERE AMBIGUOUS UNTIL 2026-08-31, AND THE AMBIGUITY WAS
|
||||
IN THIS DOCUMENT RATHER THAN IN ANY COPY — Q58, ruled by Pouya.** They read
|
||||
*"Half day — up to 3.5 h, including 2 h preparation"* and *"Full day — up to
|
||||
7 h, including 3 h preparation"*. Read literally that makes 3.5 the **whole
|
||||
billed envelope** and the time in the room **1.5 h**. Pouya's ruling: *"3.5 was
|
||||
meant as the TOTAL time committed, of which 2 is preparation — leaving 1.5 hours
|
||||
in the room… The intended reading is the market's, and my wording obscured
|
||||
it."*
|
||||
|
||||
**What found it was arithmetic, not reading:** 3.5 and 7 are exactly 2×, which
|
||||
they would not be if preparation sat inside them, **because preparation does not
|
||||
scale with session length**. Under the literal reading the room time was 1.5 h
|
||||
and 4 h, which is not 2× anything.
|
||||
|
||||
**The corrected numbers are corroborated by this file's own research table**, one
|
||||
section up — which is the reason they are 3 and 6 rather than a round guess:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Patey** publishes **3 h** half-day and **6 h** full-day in *both* tiers.
|
||||
- **Zuber** publishes **3 h** video half-day and **6 h** full day.
|
||||
- **ADR Chambers**' roster rate covers *"one half hour of preparation time per
|
||||
party **and** up to three hours of mediation"* — preparation counted
|
||||
**separately from** a three-hour session, which is the shape this card now
|
||||
has.
|
||||
|
||||
Pouya: *"Selling 1.5 hours of room time as a half day would be an outlier nobody
|
||||
would recognise."* ⚠️ **One provenance note, because this file is the authority
|
||||
on money:** he recalled Patey and Zuber as publishing *"all or part of 3 hours"*.
|
||||
The extract above records their **hours** but not that phrase, so **the hours are
|
||||
what this file relies on** — do not quote the phrase as theirs.
|
||||
|
||||
**THE PREPARATION ALLOWANCE IS CAPPED, AND MUST BE PUBLISHED AS CAPPED.**
|
||||
*"Including **up to** 2 hours of preparation."* Never *"including 2 hours"*,
|
||||
which reads as a flat entitlement, and never *"preparation included"*, which
|
||||
sells an uncapped one. See §All parameters confirmed below.
|
||||
|
||||
**Consequences, applied 2026-08-31:** `FEES.mediation.*.hours` in
|
||||
`src/data/site.ts` means the **session** and is corrected 3.5 → 3 and 7 → 6, and
|
||||
**`/fees/` is unblocked for build step 9** on the question Q58 asked.
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ **BUT WHERE OVERTIME BEGINS IS STILL NOT STATED, AND IT IS NOT SAFE TO INFER
|
||||
— §9 Q59, OPEN.** A first pass at this paragraph asserted that *"the overtime
|
||||
rate begins after 3 h and 6 h of session respectively"*. **That is a derived fee
|
||||
term, not part of the ruling**, and `adversarial-reviewer` was right to strike
|
||||
it: this file is the authority on money and `/fees/` is now cleared to publish
|
||||
from it. Nothing in the card, in Q58's ruling, or in Q15–Q17's answer says when
|
||||
the hourly rate starts.
|
||||
|
||||
**And the reason it cannot be quietly chosen is that the choice is visible in the
|
||||
arithmetic.** Take the trigger as the session cap. The half-day route costs
|
||||
`2000 + 500 × max(0, n − 3)`; the full-day route is **flat $4,000 until hour 6**
|
||||
and `4000 + 500 × (n − 6)` after it:
|
||||
|
||||
| Session run to | Book a half day + overtime | Book a full day | Gap |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 3 h | **$2,000** | **$4,000** | **$2,000** |
|
||||
| 4 h | $2,000 + 1 × $500 = **$2,500** | **$4,000** | **$1,500** |
|
||||
| 5 h | $2,000 + 2 × $500 = **$3,000** | **$4,000** | **$1,000** |
|
||||
| 6 h | $2,000 + 3 × $500 = **$3,500** | **$4,000** | **$500** |
|
||||
| 7 h | $2,000 + 4 × $500 = **$4,000** | $4,000 + 1 × $500 = **$4,500** | **$500** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Booking a half day and paying overtime is cheaper at every length — by $2,000
|
||||
at three hours, narrowing to $500 from six hours on — and the full-day rate is
|
||||
never the cheaper choice.** The gap is in D14's figures rather than in the
|
||||
trigger: the half-to-full step is $2,000 and three hours of overtime is $1,500.
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ **A FIRST PASS AT THIS PARAGRAPH GOT THE ARITHMETIC WRONG, AND WRONG IN THE
|
||||
DIRECTION THAT MATTERED.** It generalised the full-day route as `500n + 1000` for
|
||||
all `n ≥ 3`, which is **only valid from hour 6** — the route is flat until then —
|
||||
and concluded *"$500 cheaper at every length"*. The real spread is **up to four
|
||||
times larger and is largest at three to five hours, which is the band a half-day
|
||||
booking actually overruns into.** The document's own table contradicted the
|
||||
formula three lines above it. Found by `adversarial-reviewer` on round 2, in the
|
||||
change set that wrote it. *A measurement is a claim about your instrument, and a
|
||||
formula is an instrument.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Moving the trigger out to the 5 h / 9 h billed envelope does not fix it and is
|
||||
not uniformly better either** — the gap stays at $2,000 through five hours and is
|
||||
$1,500 at six, worse than the session-cap trigger there, but it closes to **zero**
|
||||
from nine hours on, where the session-cap trigger holds a permanent $500. So the
|
||||
two triggers trade one band against another and neither removes the anomaly. **It
|
||||
is not a defect this file can fix by picking a trigger, which is why the trigger
|
||||
goes to Pouya and the step goes to R5** — see §Recorded dissent below, where it is
|
||||
written out for the 12-month review rather than left in this footnote.
|
||||
|
||||
### Arbitration
|
||||
|
||||
Sole, party-appointed and co-arbitration appointments **in commercial matters**
|
||||
@@ -182,10 +266,16 @@ page is an offer.
|
||||
### All parameters confirmed
|
||||
|
||||
Q15, Q16, and Q17 were closed on 2026-08-26. **Preparation time is bundled and
|
||||
must be stated on the page** — "including 2 hours of preparation", "including
|
||||
3 hours of preparation". Do not quietly fold it into the hours figure. At these
|
||||
must be stated on the page, IN HOURS AND AS A CAP** — "including **up to** 2
|
||||
hours of preparation", "including **up to** 3 hours of preparation". Do not
|
||||
quietly fold it into the session figure, and do not drop the "up to": the
|
||||
allowance is capped, so the unqualified form sells an uncapped one. At these
|
||||
rates, saying preparation is included is the selling point, not a footnote.
|
||||
|
||||
*(The "up to" was added 2026-08-31 with Q58's ruling. This paragraph previously
|
||||
prescribed the flat form, and `/for-parties/` shipped it — the one page written
|
||||
for a reader with no counsel to catch it.)*
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recorded dissent — for the 12-month review (R5)
|
||||
@@ -227,6 +317,35 @@ unrecoverable, and it is far easier to add a lower tier later than to raise a
|
||||
headline rate. Setting the ceiling first and discounting privately preserves
|
||||
more optionality than the reverse.
|
||||
|
||||
**And a fourth item, added 2026-08-31: the half-day-plus-overtime route is
|
||||
strictly cheaper than the full-day rate, at every session length.** This is the
|
||||
one item in this section that is arithmetic rather than judgement, so it is the
|
||||
one the review can settle without new market data.
|
||||
|
||||
| Session run to | Half day + overtime | Full day | Gap |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 3 h | $2,000 | $4,000 | **$2,000** |
|
||||
| 4 h | $2,500 | $4,000 | **$1,500** |
|
||||
| 5 h | $3,000 | $4,000 | **$1,000** |
|
||||
| 6 h | $3,500 | $4,000 | **$500** |
|
||||
| 7 h | $4,000 | $4,500 | **$500** |
|
||||
|
||||
*(Session-cap trigger; the trigger itself is `AGENTS.md` §9 **Q59**, open.)* The
|
||||
cause is the relationship between two of D14's own numbers rather than anything
|
||||
about the trigger: **the half-to-full step is $2,000 and three hours of overtime
|
||||
is $1,500.** Any trigger leaves a gap; the envelope trigger closes it only from
|
||||
nine hours on.
|
||||
|
||||
**What the review has to decide is whether that is a choice.** It is defensible
|
||||
as one — a full-day booking buys certainty and a reserved diary, and a client who
|
||||
knows they need six hours may prefer to pay $500 for not having to watch the
|
||||
clock. It is also exactly the kind of thing counsel comparing published cards
|
||||
finds in under a minute, and this practice's whole pricing argument is that the
|
||||
card is published in full and means what it says. **The lever, if it is not a
|
||||
choice:** either raise the overtime rate so the routes converge, or narrow the
|
||||
half-to-full step. Both are rate moves, which is why they belong here and not in
|
||||
a footnote to the card.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Sources
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user