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

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

Browse Source 
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
This commit is contained in:
Pouya Lajevardi
2026-08-28 13:50:58 -04:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent c576b9a85f
commit 77a7b410b2
21 changed files with 5223 additions and 183 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/03-content-spec.md
+105 -11
View File
@@ -13,6 +13,47 @@ table before writing any number, statistic, or superlative. If you need a fact
you do not have, write `TODO(pouya): <exact question>` and log it in §9. Do not
infer, do not soften, do not carry anything over from the old site.
### When a fact is `[unestablished]`, write around the capacity question
**Ratified by Pouya 2026-08-28 as a reusable pattern, with the instruction that
it will recur.** §4 records licence status as `[unestablished]` and says: *do not
assert it, do not deny it.* Copy that addresses the question at all must
therefore pick neither side — and the trap is that **both obvious phrasings pick
one.**
The worked example, which took three attempts and two audits:
| Attempt | Copy | Why it failed |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "I **do not** give legal advice" | *"Do not"* is an **election** — it implies entitlement withheld by choice. Flagged by audit 1 |
| 2 | "I **cannot** give legal advice" | *"Cannot"* is a **denial** of capacity. Flagged by audit 2 |
| 3 ✅ | "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." | Makes **no capacity claim at all** |
**Both audits were right, and that is why the third version works.** Attempts 1
and 2 are opposite answers to the same question, so flagging both is not
inconsistency — it is the correct finding twice. Pouya: *"'do not' elects,
'cannot' denies, and §4 says do neither. The shipped sentence makes no capacity
claim at all — it describes the role and points the reader somewhere useful."*
**The pattern, stated for reuse:**
> Do not look for a *softer* way to answer the capacity question. Any word that
> answers it — *cannot, do not, am not, is not permitted, is not qualified* —
> takes a side of a fact this register does not hold. Instead write the sentence
> so the question **does not arise**: state the **role**, state the
> **consequence** for the reader, and stop.
Three tests before shipping such a sentence. It fails if any is yes:
1. Could a reader infer from it that he **is** entitled to do the thing?
2. Could a reader infer from it that he is **not**?
3. Does it contain a verb of capacity or permission attached to him at all?
**Where this will come up next:** `/practice/` (step 5) and `/for-parties/`, both
of which have to tell an unrepresented party what the neutral will and will not
do for them — the exact place the "cannot" phrasing feels most natural and is
most wrong.
---
## Voice
@@ -38,8 +79,18 @@ detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
The shape of the bullet still stands, so here is a sentence that fits it and
clears the register: *"I accept sole, party-appointed and co-arbitration
appointments. The Q.Arb designation commenced in August 2026; C.Med-Arb is the
endpoint."* The limit being named is the **stage of the arc**, stated plainly —
appointments **in commercial matters**. The Q.Arb **pathway** commenced in
August 2026; C.Med-Arb is the endpoint."* **"in commercial matters" is not
optional** — every §4 Offerings arbitration row is scoped commercial, family
arbitration has its own NOT OFFERED row, and §4's NOT-NEGOTIABLE boundary
records the unscoped class form as the struck universal (Q39). This model
sentence was unscoped until 2026-08-28 while the shipped page it feeds was
scoped; found by `claims-auditor` on re-audit, one file over from the same
defect fixed in `docs/04` earlier the same day. **"Pathway", never "designation"** — a *designation* that
"commenced in August 2026" reads as in force since then, i.e. **held**, which
§4 Forbidden bars outright. This model sentence said "designation" until
2026-08-28 and it is copy an implementer is told to lift; found by
`claims-auditor`. The limit being named is the **stage of the arc**, stated plainly —
Pouya's instruction is that being open about it is the differentiator, so do
not hedge it into vagueness and do not drop it. (**No tribunal-secretary
work** — D14
@@ -58,8 +109,12 @@ detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
**The approved phrasing is "active litigation exposure" or "involvement in
litigation and ADR matters" — never "practice" in that context.** Pouya's
wording, 2026-08-26. So: *Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation
and ADR boutique, with active exposure to construction, personal injury, POA,
and SABS matters.* Accurate, specific, and it claims nothing it should not.
and ADR boutique, with **active litigation exposure** across construction,
personal injury, POA, and SABS matters.* Accurate, specific, and it claims
nothing it should not. *(This example read "with active exposure to" until
2026-08-28 — a **third** variant of the phrasing, three lines below the
sentence naming the only two approved forms, in the one place where the wording
IS the compliance. Found by `claims-auditor` on re-audit.)*
This framing is **interim** — see `AGENTS.md` §12 R1. Raise it with Pouya
rather than letting it settle in by default.
@@ -83,7 +138,7 @@ detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
Reused, adapted, across the hero, the About page, and the PDF bio:
> The dispute resolution practice of Pouya Lajevardi — a credentialed neutral
> who is also close to live litigation and a practising machine-learning and
> with active litigation exposure and a practising machine-learning and
> infrastructure engineer. Built for commercial, construction, energy,
> technology, and cross-cultural disputes that turn on the contract, the code,
> the engineering documents, and the regulatory overlay around them.
@@ -213,9 +268,16 @@ redrawing the loop into a line.* First person: "my mark", not "our mark".
400–600 words of narrative, then structured credentials. Tell the three tracks
as one arc, not three lists: a JD and active litigation exposure; a parallel
career in machine learning and infrastructure engineering; a company run
alongside both. The arc is the point — the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb is stated openly as in progress. The brief treats
that arc as part of the story rather than something to obscure.
alongside the practice — §4's wording; "alongside both" was a concurrency claim
the register does not make. The arc is the point — the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb is stated openly, **with Q.Arb described as
commenced August 2026** and never as "in progress", which is looser than §4 and
is barred by `docs/06`'s cutover checklist. The brief treats that arc as part of
the story rather than something to obscure.
The designation names expand as **Qualified Mediator**, **Qualified Arbitrator**
and **Chartered Med-Arbitrator** — ADRIO's own forms, sourced in
`docs/reference/adrio-designations.md`. Never "Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator".
Omit any section that would be empty. No "Speaking" heading until there is a
talk to list.
@@ -272,9 +334,26 @@ evasions, no "contact for pricing" after promising a rate card.
### For parties
The one page in second person. Grade-9 reading level. Short sentences. Says
explicitly: the mediator is not your lawyer and cannot give you legal advice; the
mediator does not decide who is right. Answers what it costs and what happens if
you do not settle.
explicitly: **the mediator is a neutral and does not act for either party; each
party should have their own legal advice;** and the mediator does not decide who
is right. Answers what it costs and what happens if you do not settle.
> ⚠️ **THIS DIRECTIVE READ *"the mediator is not your lawyer and cannot give you
> legal advice"* UNTIL 2026-08-28, AND IT BREACHED D13 TWICE** — in the file that
> warns, fifty lines above, that `/for-parties/` is *"the exact place the
> 'cannot' phrasing feels most natural and is most wrong"*.
>
> 1. **"not your lawyer" presupposes lawyer status.** §4 Forbidden bars *the word
> "lawyer" used of Pouya*, and D13 treats implication as hard as assertion. A
> negation still carries the presupposition.
> 2. **"cannot give you legal advice" is attempt 2** in this file's own ratified
> table — *"a **denial** of capacity"* — and it fails test 3 and the
> compliance-checklist item, both added to this file in the same change set
> that left this line untouched.
>
> The replacement is the ratified pattern applied verbatim: **role, then
> consequence for the reader, and no verb of capacity.** Found by
> `claims-auditor` on re-audit; the original sweep did not reach this section.
### Insights
1,200–1,800 words, monthly cadence (brief §VIII). Territories from §VII:
@@ -313,3 +392,18 @@ Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:
- [ ] 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.)*
- [ ] 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
**Med**-Arbitrator", never "Mediator-Arbitrator"