feat: rule Q58 and close Q57; §4 lists all six areas; docs/03's checklist cites §4 instead of restating it

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

docs/03-content-spec.md

@@ -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