feat: build step 5 — /practice/ and six area pages; check:claims gates §4 in dist

Step 5 ships /practice/ and the six practice-area pages (construction,
technology, energy, insurance, shareholder, cross-border) from one route, and
adds the mechanical §4 gate Pouya ruled for.

check:claims — §4 Forbidden becomes a build error
  scripts/check-claims.mjs greps dist/**/*.html for 10 patterns, each carrying
  the incident that put it there. It strips <style> and non-JSON-LD <script>
  first (a bare sweep for "leading" returned 26 hits, 25 of them
  var(--leading-body)), self-tests every pattern against fixtures before
  sweeping, and refuses a missing, empty or stale dist/. Wired into /build
  Phase 5 and both deploy paths.

Q54 — six conduct undertakings publish, and §4 gains a third class
  Conduct undertakings sit apart from credentials and offerings: the gate is
  that Pouya said it in terms. The strings live in CONDUCT_UNDERTAKINGS so a
  softening is one visible diff. (e) and (f) replace the third-person sentences
  already on /arbitration/ rather than joining them.

Q49, Q50 recorded as rulings. §7 records the SES us-east-1 stray identity's
deletion. R11 holds typescript at its current major, with the peer-range
reason recorded.

Three facts corrected, two of them already shipped
  - The LAT gloss said mediation "before filing and continuing after filing";
    the Tribunal names mediation for "Before you apply" only and its second
    sentence is about negotiation. An ellipsis in docs/01 had deleted it.
  - "Connection allocation" is not an Ontario term.
  - "The 2026 privacy statute" does not exist — Bill C-27 died without royal
    assent. Struck from docs/03 rather than corrected in place.

ADR Chambers struck from /arbitration/ and from docs/01 item 3 (Pouya,
2026-08-30): the source establishes what the firm publishes, not that an
outside neutral can be appointed under its rules.

claims-auditor gains a second lens — for every quoted source, whether the
sentence beneath stays inside what the quotation establishes. Four shipped
defects had that shape and none of them is greppable.

CLAUDE.md gains a convention: never truncate the output of a check you intend
to believe. `npm run check | tail -3` returns warnings, hints and a blank line
and drops the errors line; it was reported as passing four times while
astro check was exiting 1 with 10 type errors.

Gates, exit status read directly, not through a pipe:
  npm run check        exit=0
  npm run lint         exit=0
  npm run build        exit=0
  npm run check:claims exit=0

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5

docs/01-architecture.md

@@ -235,14 +235,16 @@ an *agreement* settles, not what he promises.
 1. What the service is; sole-arbitrator and party-appointed
    appointments.
 2. **Tracks:** documents-only, expedited, full hearing.
-3. **Rules:** ADRIC, ADR Chambers, ad hoc.
-   ⚠️ *`/arbitration/` as built names the **ADRIC Arbitration Rules** (new
-   edition effective 1 March 2025, with an arbitrator appointment protocol) and
-   "ad hoc, or whatever the contract names". It does **not** name ADR
-   Chambers*: nothing in `docs/reference/` sources what rules ADR Chambers
-   publishes, and `docs/07-fees.md` cites it only for published **fee ranges**,
-   which is a different claim (R14). Name it on the page once a source is
-   committed.
+3. **Rules:** ADRIC, ad hoc. ✅ **Both are named on the page.**
+   ⚠️ **ADR CHAMBERS WAS STRUCK FROM THIS ITEM AND FROM THE PAGE ON 2026-08-30
+   — Pouya's ruling, and do not reinstate it from an earlier reading of this
+   spec.** This item listed it as a third rule option for most of the project.
+   `docs/reference/adr-institution-names.md` sources what the firm *publishes*;
+   it does not source that an outside neutral can be appointed under those
+   rules, and the firm's own model clause reads *"at ADR Chambers"* — so naming
+   it here implied a relationship the repository does not establish. The ADRIC
+   edition date (1 March 2025) is published on the page because ADRIC publishes
+   one.
 4. Awards — form, reasoning, timing.
 5. **Credentialing status, stated plainly.** The Q.Arb pathway **commenced
    August 2026**; the page says so in those words. *"In progress" was the
@@ -375,10 +377,32 @@ practice.
 **Search intent:** `Bill 40 dispute`, `IESO dispute resolution`,
 `OEB leave to construct dispute`, `grid connection dispute Ontario`.
 
-Grid connection and allocation, leave-to-construct, proponent–municipality
-disputes, IESO market participation, data-centre connection allocation. Brief
-§III.2 frames this as a 24–36 month build. **Write it as a genuine position, not
-a claim of existing volume.**
+Connection assessment and approval, leave to construct, proponent–municipality
+disputes, IESO market participation, and the large-load / data-centre connection
+regime. Brief §III.2 frames this as a 24–36 month build. **Write it as a genuine
+position, not a claim of existing volume.**
+
+> ⚠️ **"CONNECTION ALLOCATION" WAS THIS SECTION'S WORDING AND IT IS NOT AN
+> ONTARIO TERM. Corrected 2026-08-29**, against the IESO's own pages
+> (`docs/reference/ontario-energy-regulatory.md`), which contain **zero**
+> occurrences of "allocation" of any kind across the connection process. It also
+> reached `src/data/site.ts` and shipped in the six-card grid on three pages.
+>
+> **Use the terms these bodies use:** *connection assessment and approval (CAA)*
+> is the umbrella; the IESO performs a *System Impact Assessment (SIA)* and the
+> transmitter a *Customer Impact Assessment (CIA)*. **Ontario has no
+> interconnection queue** — the IESO says so in terms and works from "committed
+> projects" instead, so "our place in the queue" describes nothing. The
+> genuinely adjacent term, the OEB's *Capacity Allocation Model* in the
+> Distribution System Code, is about housing-development connections and is a
+> different thing.
+>
+> **Bill 40 is identified**, and the identification was not safe to assume: it
+> is Bill 40 of the **44th Parliament, 1st Session — the Protect Ontario by
+> Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act, 2025**, Royal Assent
+> 11 December 2025. Bill numbers are reused every parliament and most Ontario
+> Bill 40s are unrelated to energy (43-1 is a highway-traffic bill). Cite the
+> parliament and session, never the bare number.
 
 ### `/practice/insurance/`
 
@@ -403,16 +427,31 @@ a claim of existing volume.**
 > - The LAT Rules contain **zero** occurrences of `mediat` or `arbitrat` —
 >   0 in 66,593 characters. The concept is not in them.
 > - The LAT-AABS page itself, though, says: *"Before you apply to the LAT-AABS,
->   you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services… including before
->   filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing… after a claim has been filed."*
->   **That is the affirmative basis for the offering, in the Tribunal's words.**
+>   you may want to consider negotiation or mediation services."*
+>   **That is the affirmative basis for the offering, in the Tribunal's words** —
+>   and it is the whole of it.
+>
+> ⚠️ **THE QUOTATION ABOVE WAS ELLIPSED, AND THE ELLIPSIS REMOVED THE WORD THAT
+> SCOPED IT. Corrected 2026-08-29.** It read *"…consider negotiation or
+> mediation services… including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing…
+> after a claim has been filed."* The Tribunal's second sentence is
+> *"Parties are encouraged to attempt to **negotiate** the claim at all times,
+> including before filing at the LAT-AABS, and continuing **negotiation**
+> discussions after a claim has been filed."* — **negotiation, twice.** The
+> second ellipsis deleted the second "negotiation" and made a sentence about
+> negotiation read as one about mediation. The full passage is quoted verbatim
+> in `docs/reference/lat-case-conference.md`, which now carries the correction
+> and the reason it survived three checks.
 >
 > **The page must state that the mediation offered is PRIVATE, retained by the
 > parties, and is not the Tribunal's case conference.** Published blurb:
 > *"Accident benefits and SABS entitlement, MIG disputes, and private mediation
-> alongside a LAT application, before filing or after."* If Pouya holds a roster
-> position that makes more than that true, it is a §4 addition — absent a row,
-> it is not.
+> retained by the parties, not the Tribunal's case conference."* **Do not
+> restore the "before filing or after" form** — it rested on the elided half.
+> The page may quote the Tribunal's actual sentence, which supports mediation
+> **before an application**; it may not attribute the after-filing frame to the
+> Tribunal. If Pouya holds a roster position that makes more than that true, it
+> is a §4 addition — absent a row, it is not.
 
 Highest realistic near-term volume — it flows directly from the existing
 personal-injury and SABS work, and brief §IV.7 notes the segment is