feat: build step 3 — /about/, minus its memberships; close Q40–Q43

Applies Pouya's rulings on Q42, Q41(a)(b)(c), Q43 and Q40, then builds
`/about/` — six of docs/01's seven items.

`/about/` ships WITHOUT a memberships group. R10 is a prohibition on
shipping a page that lists memberships before they are re-confirmed; the
re-confirmation is a fact only Pouya holds and was not obtained. The
first version published all four and disclosed the gap in five places
instead; both review agents rejected that. Q44 carries the question.

Rulings:
- Q42 — ENE, dispute-system design and pre-dispute technical advisory
  rowed; settlement counsel struck as a partisan role. The strike
  exposed a hole in the offering test, which now states the prior
  question it was missing.
- Q41(a) — Q37 reaches prose, and prose is held to a higher bar. The
  sentence is now one constant, ASYMMETRY_LINE, because two hand-typed
  copies had already diverged inside one session.
- Q41(b) — not restored; the implication turned out to be in three
  places, two of which survived the sweep that closed it.
- Q41(c) — verified against the LAT's own Rules and extracted into
  docs/reference/lat-case-conference.md. Rule 2.4 makes "Pre-Hearing
  Conference" the Tribunal's own term for a case conference; the Rules
  contain zero occurrences of `mediat` in 66,593 characters.
- Q43 — the timings are service commitments; PROCESS_FRAMING renders
  adjacent to them, not in a lede above.
- Q40 — bundled to step 7 as R15, blocking cutover.

Four review passes, 43 findings, nine of them defects in their own
predecessors' fixes. The worst was mine: the false universal Q39 struck
reached a public page. Also fixed a portrait ladder that upscaled 1.93x
at 1024/DPR2 on BOTH pages — the shipped home page included — because
its 960 ceiling was derived from the layout range where the image is
narrowest.

Verified: check/lint/build/audit clean; 0 upscaling across 11 device
profiles; 0 overflow and 0 over-wide elements at 13 widths; 0 contrast
failures across 127 and 88 painted pairs; 0 print failures against white
paper; reveal 0 hidden under reduced-motion and print; zero JavaScript.
Lighthouse NOT RUN — tool unavailable until step 7 (R11). HTML validator
NOT RUN.

Opens Q44 (memberships), Q45 (PDF bio), Q46 (offering-test gating; the
glossary standard), Q47 (jobTitle without worksFor). Adds R15.

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

docs/03-content-spec.md

@@ -85,13 +85,32 @@ 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
 > infrastructure engineer. Built for commercial, construction, energy,
-> technology, and cross-cultural disputes that turn on facts most neutrals take
-> on faith: the contract, the code, the engineering documents, and the
-> regulatory overlay around them.
+> technology, and cross-cultural disputes that turn on the contract, the code,
+> the engineering documents, and the regulatory overlay around them.
 
 Every version of this must survive the §4 check. It does: each element is
 verified.
 
+**AMENDED 2026-08-27 — `AGENTS.md` Q41(b). The statement read *"disputes that
+turn on facts most neutrals take on faith: the contract…"* and the comparative
+is struck.** It was not restored, and Pouya gave two reasons, the second of
+which is the one to remember:
+
+> "That is an unverifiable empirical claim about other practitioners, and
+> comparative claims must be factual and verifiable. **It is also weaker copy:
+> assert his capability, not the field's incapability.** Rewrite to claim only
+> about himself — 'built for disputes that turn on the contract, the code, and
+> the engineering documents'. Same force, nothing to defend."
+
+So the compliance objection and the editorial objection point the same way.
+The checklist item below — *"any comparative claim is factual and verifiable"* —
+had been overridden in practice by the fact that this paragraph was **approved
+copy**, which is how an unverifiable claim ends up inside the document that
+forbids it. The approved copy is what changed.
+
+**This is now the ONLY sanctioned form of the statement.** Any earlier draft
+carrying the comparative is superseded, wherever it is quoted.
+
 ## Approved headline options
 
 From the content brief; all three sit honestly with the practice.
@@ -124,6 +143,37 @@ invited the reader to supply the symmetry, and for "Law" the missing half is a
 licence — which D13 bars by implication as hard as by assertion. The replacement
 is longer and deliberately lopsided. Do not tidy it back into a parallel.
 
+**AND THE RULE IS NOT SCOPED TO THIS LABEL — `AGENTS.md` Q41(a), Pouya
+2026-08-27.** Q37 was asked about a credential label; the reasoning applies to
+every surface, prose included:
+
+> "Yes, Q37's reasoning reaches prose. The implication test applies everywhere,
+> not just to labels. **Prose has more room, so it is easier to satisfy: state
+> the asymmetry explicitly rather than relying on a parallel construction to
+> carry it.**"
+
+Read the second half carefully, because it sets a **higher** bar for prose, not
+a looser one. Deleting the parallel is only half the job — a reader can still
+supply the missing symmetry from silence. Prose has room to say which half is
+which, so it must. Naming the legal half as **training** is what makes the licence
+implication impossible rather than merely absent.
+
+**THE SENTENCE IS A CONSTANT, NOT COPY TO BE RETYPED** — `ASYMMETRY_LINE` in
+`src/data/site.ts`:
+
+> "The two halves are not the same kind of thing, and the asymmetry is the honest
+> part. A law degree on one side. A working engineering practice on the other.
+> One is training I hold. The other is work I still do."
+
+It lives beside `ROLE` for the reason that file gives: *"these are the two where
+the wording IS the compliance."* This paragraph previously quoted it inline and
+cited it as living at "`/`, §The approach" — and by then it had been typed into
+`/about/` too, so there were **three copies and two of them had already
+diverged**: a comma here and on `/`, full stops on `/about/`, all inside the
+session that wrote them. Consume the constant on any page that needs the
+sentence. Do not retype it, do not paraphrase it, and do not quote a variant of
+it in a spec.
+
 Fourth slot where the layout has one: **Q.Arb — commenced August 2026.** Use
 that wording, not "in progress": §4 pins it, and the weaker form drifts toward
 "nearly complete", which §4 Forbidden bars outright.
@@ -151,6 +201,14 @@ Hero headline from the approved list. Positioning paragraph above. CTAs:
 dispute — and keeps the infinity metaphor: *disputes are loops; the work is
 redrawing the loop into a line.* First person: "my mark", not "our mark".
 
+> ⚠️ **"law and engineering" IS THE STRUCK CONSTRUCTION. Do not lift this
+> sentence into copy.** The *argument* it names is Pouya's and stands; the noun
+> pair carrying it is what Q37 struck and Q41(a) extended to prose. It reached
+> the page once already, as *"Law and engineering are not blended here"* — the
+> struck parallel relocated from the credential label into body copy, one day
+> after it was struck, and strengthened by attributing both halves to him
+> personally. A spec phrase describing an argument is not approved copy.
+
 ### About
 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
@@ -187,6 +245,26 @@ neither.
 Five steps with real timing. Say what happens if the matter does not settle —
 counsel want to know the downside shape before they commit a client's day.
 
+**AMENDED 2026-08-27 — `AGENTS.md` Q43, and it overrides this section's previous
+reading.** "Real timing" was being read as *barring* the word "typical", which
+is why the step-2 build shipped the five timings as bare numbers and escalated
+the question instead of framing them. Pouya ruled the other way:
+
+> "The five process timings are **service commitments, same class as Q27's
+> response time** — not facts about Pouya, so they need framing, not a Verified
+> row. Present them as the TYPICAL shape of an engagement, explicitly not a
+> guarantee: mediation timing depends on party and counsel availability, which
+> he does not control. **Published as typical, they are honest and useful;
+> published as commitments, the first matter that slips makes the page false.**"
+
+So: the **numbers do not change** — softening them was never the fix and
+inventing them was never on. What "real timing" bars is a *vague* timing
+("promptly", "in a matter of weeks"), not an honest statement of what the
+numbers are. The framing is `PROCESS_FRAMING` in `src/data/site.ts` and it is
+**not optional**: every page that renders the steps renders it, adjacent to the
+numbers rather than in a section lede above them. A reader who scans the strip
+and skips the lede has read a commitment.
+
 ### Fees
 **Unblocked — Q4/Q14 answered, D14.** Build from the confirmed card in
 `docs/07-fees.md`. Plain table, no "starting from"