feat: apply six rulings; close Q22/Q44/Q45/Q46(b)/Q47; revert Q47's two graph fields

Pouya's rulings: Q44 (memberships current — ship the group), Q45 (PDF bio
deferred to step 9), Q46(a) (three offerings pass all gates), Q46(b) (§11
ratified as the source for definitional expansions, conditional on committing
the source), Q47 (set jobTitle and worksFor), the legal-advice formulation
ratified without change, and Q22 closed on his own execution evidence.

Q46(b): docs/reference/adrio-designations.md commits all five ADRIO expansions
with reproducible sha256 (four fetches each; both review agents independently
reproduced every digest). It immediately caught the error Pouya raised in the
same message — §11 had said "Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator" since the file was
created, ADRIO's term is "Chartered Med-Arbitrator", and the wrong form was in
dist/about/index.html. Four prior review passes read that string and checked
only whether it was sourced, not whether it was right.

Q47 REVERTED after both review agents struck it independently. jobTitle shipped
for one pass as "Mediator and Commercial Arbitrator" — the string claims-auditor
had removed from this same node's description the previous day, since §4 has no
row for a completed arbitration. The implementation flagged the wrong defect: it
argued about scoping and missed that the whole string was already struck. worksFor
was reverted because ProfessionalService.provider is this Person, so
provider -> Person -> worksFor asserts a same-entity claim transitively. Now
jobTitle: 'Mediator', no worksFor. Q49 asks for the two §4 rows.

Q44: memberships render with NO currency warranty (his condition), and R10 is
re-armed with an event trigger rather than a date since he declined renewal-date
tracking. Q22: §7 goes to PROVISIONED; R17 carries the first rotation date,
2026-11-26. New CLAUDE.md convention, his: never suppress stderr in a
verification script — suppression turns "it failed" into "it found nothing".

Two review rounds resolved 48 findings; the majority of the second round were
defects in the first round's fixes, including a re-widening of §4's renewal
period inside the comment that corrects that widening, a cited guard in
schema.ts that does not exist, and a struck §9 row describing a reverted state.
Three findings were one lift from a public page: docs/03's /for-parties/
directive breached D13 twice, docs/01 told an implementer an unpublishable strip
could ship, and docs/07 priced three ungated offerings with no gate note.

Also commits docs/reference/adrio-extract/ — the extraction script and its five
outputs, since the digests covered raw HTML and said nothing about the text the
term counts were run against. The equivalent gap for Q22's IAM verification is
NOT closed and is Q52.

Verified: astro check 0/0/0, eslint + prettier clean, build 2 pages, 0 .js
emitted, minifier guard silent, animation-timeline intact, no currency-warranty
phrasing in dist, JSON-LD correct on both pages.
NOT run: Lighthouse (tool unavailable until step 7, R11); HTML validator.

Opens Q48-Q53. Live reminders: R1, R10, R11, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0148NztQskLKKApP5SzAA78e

.claude/agents/claims-auditor.md

@@ -33,9 +33,21 @@ replaced with something verified.
 
 **Licensure (D13).** The site asserts the JD and nothing further. Flag: "lawyer",
 "called to the bar", "licensed", "my law practice", "my litigation practice",
-"my clients", "acts for", "represents", "legal advice", or any post-nominal
-implying a licence. **Flag implication as hard as assertion** — "my litigation
-practice" claims licensure without the word.
+"my clients", "acts for", "represents", or any post-nominal implying a licence.
+**Flag implication as hard as assertion** — "my litigation practice" claims
+licensure without the word.
+
+**"legal advice" — FLAG IT ONLY WHERE IT ATTACHES A CAPACITY TO POUYA.** This
+list carried a bare *"legal advice"* until 2026-08-28, which applied literally
+flags the **ratified** sentence *"each party should have their own legal
+advice"*. Flag *giving* legal advice, *practising law*, or *holding a licence*
+predicated of him — not the phrase wherever it appears. `docs/03`'s
+*"When a fact is `[unestablished]`"* section carries the pattern and the three
+tests; the shipped sentence is its worked example of a **pass**.
+
+*This is the fourth stale claim found inside this brief. The same correction
+reached `docs/03`'s compliance checklist and did not reach here — the shape this
+paragraph's own memberships note records two sections down.*
 
 The approved phrasing for the boutique role is **"active litigation exposure"**
 or **"involvement in litigation and ADR matters"**. The word **"practice"** in