feat: build step 4 — /mediation/, /arbitration/, /med-arb/; source ADRIC's rules

Three pages, five in the build, zero JavaScript. /arbitration/ carries §4's paired-disclosure condition on four surfaces and Q39's struck universal appears in no form. /med-arb/ meets the procedural-fairness objection at the level of process design and ships deliberately without Pouya's own protocol commitments, which are Q54. docs/01 directed the mediation page to name the "ADRIC Model Mediation Rules". No such document exists — 0 occurrences across all four of ADRIC's rules pages against 10 for "National Mediation Rules"; "Model" belongs to the Model Dispute Resolution Clause inside the rules. Caught only because R14 requires the source before the claim. docs/reference/adric-rules.md + adric-extract/ carry it, with the digest drift measured rather than assumed: the HTML changes per request, the text extracts are byte-stable, so the extracts are the artefact. Four review passes, 21 defects, and the pattern was mine: I wrote the Q54 gate into the page and then breached it four times, then round 2 found two survivors of round 1's own fixes and one defect round 1's fix created. Also removed a <title> naming a practised role §4 does not grant, a habitual presupposing awards issued, and a claim about what ADRIC's rules permit that my own reference doc says is unsupported. Two instrument failures caught before they became conclusions: touch targets measured over file:// with no CSS loaded (uniform 18px, including on a .btn with a 44px floor), and a schema.org validator call that parsed nothing and returned 0 warnings for everything. Both re-run with the instrument validated first. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0148NztQskLKKApP5SzAA78e
2026-08-28 17:06:27 -04:00
parent 2282183b4b
commit f3138a0a79
18 changed files with 2496 additions and 18 deletions
@@ -701,6 +701,7 @@ Nothing below can be invented. Each needs an answer from Pouya.
 | ~~Q51~~ | **ANSWERED 2026-08-28 — KEEP THE OBA SECTIONS. The distinction is structural, not evidentiary.** Pouya: *"the Law Society is the regulator, so membership IS licensure; the OBA is a voluntary association. Structural distinction, independent of eligibility details."* That last clause is what closes it: the question was raised as unanswerable inside this repo **because OBA eligibility is not established here** — and the ruling makes eligibility irrelevant. A voluntary association admits members it does not license, so listing it carries no licensure implication; a regulator's membership roll *is* the licence. Recorded in §4's memberships row and in `.claude/agents/claims-auditor.md` so it is not re-litigated, and removed from `docs/06`'s cutover checklist. **R1 is unaffected** — same page, same subject, different question, still live | — |
 | ~~Q52~~ | **CLOSED 2026-08-28 — committed, and RE-RUN rather than transcribed.** Pouya: *"YES — commit the simulate results, the inline policy, and the `NoSuchBucketPolicy` response, access key ID redacted."* `docs/reference/deploy-credential-verification.md` — eighteen read-only calls, each with the command that produced it, generated from captured output with the key ID replaced by `AKIA…REDACTED`. **Every value in §7's row reproduced**, including all nine `simulate-principal-policy` decisions (four `allowed`, five `implicitDeny`). **Two things the re-run added that the original verification did not have.** (1) A **contrast call**: `get-bucket-policy` on the *site* bucket returns exit 0 and a real policy, which is what makes exit **254** / `NoSuchBucketPolicy` on the backup bucket a genuine absence rather than a command that failed to start — the rule `CLAUDE.md` records twice, applied to the evidence that closes a High risk. (2) A correction to §7's own wording on the key's `LastUsed` field shape. The **secret** access key was never requested; the API cannot return it | — |
 | ~~Q53~~ | **ANSWERED 2026-08-28 — EMIT IT. The withholding is dropped.** Pouya: *"the memberships are already crawlable in `/about/`'s HTML, so withholding the triple reduces no exposure and only makes the graph less complete than the page."* Option (a) of the three the question offered. `src/data/schema.ts` now emits `memberOf` — the four §4 memberships as `Organization` nodes — **on `/about/` only**, which is where the page shows them, so the graph and the visible page assert the same set. **This ends a judgement that was restated three times and wrong twice:** cacheability proved too much (equally true of `hasCredential`, which ships), volatility did not survive the page already carrying the claim, and the widened *"yearly renewing"* premise it rested on was itself a §4 misstatement found on re-audit | — |
 | **Q54** | **Six conduct commitments are drafted and NONE ships. Confirm them, rewrite them, or decline them — three pages are the poorer for their absence and none of them may carry a commitment you have not made.** `docs/03` requires `/med-arb/` to meet the procedural-fairness objection *"head-on"* and rates that section the reason the page is worth reading; `/mediation/` and `/arbitration/` have the same gap in smaller form. **All three pages now answer at the level of PROCESS DESIGN** — what an agreement has to settle, what a rule set does and does not fix — because that describes the process and needs no §4 row. **What none of them carries is what YOU will do**, which is the half a reader weighs when choosing a neutral. Under **Q43** these are **service commitments**, not facts about you, so they are publishable **the moment you have said them** — the bar is that you said them, not that §4 rows them. Drafted, and each is a separate yes: **(a) med-arb, the switch** — *"The switch is agreed in writing before the mediation phase begins, or I do not take the appointment. I will not convert a mediation into an arbitration on the day because the room has run out of road."* **(b) med-arb, caucus material** — *"If a party tells me something in caucus they are not prepared for me to rely on as arbitrator, they say so at the time, and it does not enter the arbitral record."* **(c) med-arb, the hard one** — *"If I cannot decide a remaining issue without relying on something said to me in confidence, I say so and step out of the arbitral phase rather than decide on it."* **(d) mediation, caucus confidentiality** — *"What a party tells me in caucus stays in that caucus until they tell me I may use it, and I do not carry a number across the hall that I was not given to carry."* **(e) arbitration, procedure** — *"I will not run a process whose shape nobody agreed to in advance."* **(f) arbitration, the award date** — *"The date the award is due is fixed in the first procedural order rather than left open."* **(c) is the one to weigh hardest** — the strongest available answer to the fairness objection and by far the most expensive commitment; a neutral who would not honour it must not publish it. ⚠️ **(d) and (e) SHIPPED for one pass and were removed.** `claims-auditor` found them: the gate was applied to `/med-arb/` in the same change set that wrote them, and not applied one file over. Raised by Claude Code 2026-08-28 | The fairness section on `/med-arb/`, and one paragraph each on `/mediation/` and `/arbitration/`. Nothing else — all three pages ship |
 | **Q38** | **A true vector master for the infinity mark.** The mark is a shaded ribbon — variable-width band, maroon flowing into champagne, twisting in three dimensions and passing over itself at the crossing. That is gradient-mesh artwork, and there is no honest way to express it as the flat vector paths `docs/02` assumes. An SVG **is** held — `src/assets/brand/sml-logo-source.svg` — and **it renders faithfully**: rasterised at 8333 px it reproduces the master exactly, at the same 1.566:1 `[verified 2026-08-26 — rendered and measured]`. *The characterisation has now moved twice and Pouya has settled it.* This row first called the file **"a raster in a vector wrapper"**; a later draft withdrew that as unfair. **The withdrawal went too far, and Pouya's ruling of 2026-08-27 restores the substance:** *"It renders faithfully because it IS the raster. Your first characterisation was accurate and the walk-back went too far."* Both things are true at once and the row must hold both — the file is a faithful rendering **and** it is faithful because seven base64 PNGs are carried inside it, which is why fidelity was never the question. **The Canva SVG does not close this question.** Pouya: *"Keep it committed, keep the AVIF render path. R13 stays open for a true vector master."* What rules it out is **payload and composition**: 257,278 bytes against **3,063 B** for the AVIF a Retina browser takes in the header — **84×** — plus **seven embedded base64 PNGs** and a 1,225-stop gradient mesh, so inlining it would breach `CLAUDE.md`'s rule against base64-inlining images. *Restated 2026-08-27, because the single number stopped covering the case:* build step 2 added a **232 px** call site (the home page's approach section, rendering at 225.5 px) beside the existing 64 px one, and at that size a DPR-2 device takes **14,555 B** and DPR-3 **22,639 B** — a ratio of ~11×, not 84×. `adversarial-reviewer` caught the three copies of the old figure going stale together, which is the SES-DKIM duplication in a new place. Both ladders are in `docs/reference/brand-assets.md`; **quote the size with the call site, never on its own.** Also worth knowing before someone reads it as a regression: the PNG fallback at 232 px runs **38,094 / 91,618 / 150,215 B**. Nothing that negotiates content types takes it — a DPR-3 device with neither AVIF nor WebP does not exist in practice — and the AVIF above is what real clients fetch. Accepted deliberately rather than capped, because capping it would blunt the mark on the high-DPI desktops that are the only place the 696 px variant is used at all. What is wanted is a master that is faithful **and** light. **Pouya is commissioning a proper vector master.** Until it lands, `InfinityMark.astro` renders an optimised raster and that is a **documented, temporary exception to `docs/02`'s inline-SVG rule** (R13 keeps it from becoming permanent). When the master arrives: replace the component's `<Picture>` with inline SVG, regenerate the favicons from it, and delete the exception from `docs/02` and this row. Raised by Claude Code 2026-08-26; scoped by Pouya the same day | Nothing — the mark renders correctly. This is fidelity and payload, not function |
 | ~~Q32~~ | **ANSWERED 2026-08-26 — and the answer was that the reconstruction was WRONG.** Pouya rendered the committed path against the master (`SML Company Just Logo Transparent.png`, 3000×3000) and rejected it on three counts. Two reproduce from the path alone: **(a) TANGENT, NOT CROSSING** — all four cubic branches meet the origin at exactly 90°, so the loops are mutually tangent on a vertical line and at stroke-width 28 render as *two kissing circles*, the one thing an infinity mark must not be `[verified 2026-08-26 — tangent vectors computed per segment, independently reproduced]`. Both lobes are strictly confined to their own half-plane (x is monotone on every segment), so the signed crossing number is **0** — they cannot cross anywhere, not merely at the node. Worse at the size actually shipped: the two strokes stay fused into one mass wherever the centreline separation `y²/192` is under 28, i.e. across **61% of the mark's height** — at 2rem that is a 16.8px blob out of a 27.4px-tall mark. No stroke-width, viewBox or scale change can produce a crossing from this centreline; **(b) WRONG PROPORTION** — the master's ink bounding box is **2668 × 1704 = 1.5657:1** `[verified 2026-08-26 — measured]`, and **(c)** the master is a shaded ribbon where the trace was two flat uniform strokes. ***1.23:1 — RECONCILED, and it was a real measurement, not a slip.*** It is the bounding box of the path's **coordinates** rather than of the **curve**. The control points sit at y = ±160 while the curve only reaches ±120 — the standard 3/4 pull-in of a cubic — so a coordinate-hull box is 400 × 320 = 1.2500, and with stroke-width 28 applied on all four sides it is **428 × 348 = 1.2299**. Pouya's figure to four significant figures, from one method applied consistently `[verified 2026-08-26 — derived]`. **It is a trap rather than a slip:** because x is monotone on every segment, the control points give the *correct* width (±200) and a 33% inflated height, so the obvious sanity check — "does the width look right?" — passes. Any tool that reads a bbox from parsed coordinates lands here; `getBBox()` would have returned 400 × 240. **And the direction is inverted from how it read:** measured from the curve, the traced path is 6.4% *wider and flatter* than the master, not squatter. **Consequence worth keeping:** the declared viewBox 440:280 = 1.5714 is within **0.35%** of the master's 1.566, so re-tuning the layout to the true ratio was ~0.18px of work at the shipped 2rem — and **re-tuning to 1.23 would have actively broken it** — at any given width 1.2299 allocates 1.5657/1.2299 = **27% more height** than the mark occupies, so the header would have been rebuilt around a box a quarter too tall. The ratio was never sufficient grounds on its own; **(a) tangency is, and it is exact.** **The traced path is deleted, not kept as a fallback**, on Pouya's instruction: *a wrong mark that renders is worse than a missing one, because it stops looking wrong.* Now closed by Q38 for the vector master | — |
 | ~~Q32-orig~~ | *(superseded — the original wording of this question is preserved in entry (v))* | `src/components/InfinityMark.astro` is built from geometry lifted verbatim from the deployed site's own loading-thumbnail SVG — the element it labels `smlMark`, fetched from `https://adr.smlcompany.ca/` on 2026-08-26. Path, both stroke widths (28 / 6) and the 0.7 inner opacity are the source's; the only change is folding a `translate(60 0)` into the coordinates. So it is SML's own artwork rather than a redrawing — but a loading placeholder is not necessarily the canonical file, and D7 says the mark carries over *unchanged*. If a master SVG or AI/EPS exists, supply it and the component gets replaced. Raised by Claude Code, 2026-08-26 | Nothing — the mark renders. This is about fidelity, not a blocker |
@@ -803,6 +804,209 @@ never being raised again.
 # Change Log
 ## 2026-08-28 (aa) — Build step 4: `/mediation/`, `/arbitration/`, `/med-arb/`. ADRIC's rules sourced, and `docs/01` had the wrong name for one of them
 **Three pages, five in the build, zero JavaScript.** `/arbitration/` carries §4's
 paired-disclosure condition on four surfaces; `/med-arb/` meets the
 procedural-fairness objection at the level of process design and ships
 deliberately **without** Pouya's own protocol commitments, which is **Q54**.
 ### The fetch earned itself before a word of copy was written
 `docs/01` directed `/mediation/` to name the **"ADRIC Model Mediation Rules"**.
 No such document exists. Measured across all four of ADRIC's rules pages:
 ```console
 $ for f in *.txt; do printf '%-42s Model=%s National=%s\n' "$f" \
    "$(grep -o -F 'Model Mediation Rules' "$f" | wc -l)" \
    "$(grep -o -F 'National Mediation Rules' "$f" | wc -l)"; done
 rules-codes.txt                            Model=0  National=2
 rules-codes__national-mediation-rules.txt  Model=0  National=10
 rules-codes__arbrules.txt                  Model=0  National=2
 rules-codes__adric-med-arb-rules.txt       Model=0  National=2
 ```
 The document's own heading is *"The ADRIC National Mediation Rules"*. **"Model"
 belongs to the Model Dispute Resolution Clause**, a contract clause *inside* the
 rules. This is the `Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator` shape a second time — a wrong
 institutional name sitting in a spec, waiting to be copied onto a public page —
 and it was caught only because R14 requires the source before the claim.
 `docs/reference/adric-rules.md` + `adric-extract/` carry it, with a difference
 from the ADRIO fetch that is measured rather than assumed: **the HTML digests
 drift on every request** (page-builder class suffix, a rotating sponsor
 carousel, Cloudflare email obfuscation, a challenge token — read out of a diff
 of two fetches three minutes apart) while **the text extracts are byte-stable**.
 So the extracts are the artefact and the digests only record what was fetched.
 It also turned up the **ADRIC Med-Arb Rules**, which `docs/01` did not know
 about, and corroborated `Chartered Med-Arbitrator` from a second body.
 ### What the four review passes found — 21 defects, and the pattern is mine
 **The gate I built, breached four times.** `/med-arb/`'s header comment states
 the rule — a first-person commitment about how Pouya runs an engagement is a
 claim about his practice with no §4 row — and a `TODO(pouya)` sits ten lines
 above it. The page then shipped *"What I will not do is agree to one where the
 parties have not settled the switch in writing first"*, which is Q54(a). Three
 more shipped on the neighbouring pages. Both agents found it independently.
 Round 2 then found **two survivors of round 1's own fix**: *"I will work from a
 bespoke protocol"* on `/mediation/`, and *"carry what I am given to carry"* —
 Q54(d) in compressed positive form, in the hero lede.
 **Three that would have reached a public page:**
 - **`<title>`: "Arbitration · Pouya Lajevardi · Sole Arbitrator · Toronto"** —
  `Name · Role · City` is a designation strip, and §4 grants exactly one
  practised role. It is the form struck from `jobTitle` and `description` the
  day before, reintroduced in the one string a search result renders. Now
  *"Commercial Arbitration · Pouya Lajevardi · Toronto"*.
 - **"Every award I issue"** — a habitual presupposing awards issued, where the
  register records none. Now *"An award should be…"*.
 - **"The rules are a starting point. They are not a constraint on how the day is
  run"** — a claim about what ADRIC's rules permit. `adric-rules.md` Finding 4,
  written the same hour, says the fetch reached landing pages and supports **no
  statement of what any rule requires or permits**. The constraint was written
  and then crossed two files later.
 **And the arb-med definition survived being fixed.** *"the order of the phases is
 the whole difference"* was replaced with *"the phases run in a different order"* —
 which, on a page that defines med-arb as mediation→arbitration, **still defines
 arb-med, by inversion**. The differentia is gone entirely now.
 ### Two instrument failures, caught before they became conclusions
 Both mine, and both would have produced confident wrong numbers.
 1. **Touch targets measured over `file://`** returned a uniform **18 px** —
   including on a `.btn` carrying a 44 px floor. `file://` cannot resolve
   `/_astro/…`, so **the page had no CSS at all**. Re-run over HTTP with the
   instrument validated first (2 stylesheets, `.btn` = exactly 44 px, cream
   background), the real numbers matched `adversarial-reviewer`'s to the pixel.
 2. **`validator.schema.org` returned 0 warnings for every page**, including one
   with a known-bad field. The response said `fetchError: NOT_FOUND`,
   `numObjects: 0` — the wrong parameter name, so nothing was ever parsed.
   Calibrated against a deliberately invalid probe (`Service` +
   `availableLanguage` → 2 `UNKNOWN_FIELD`), the real result was **3 out-of-domain
   fields on `/` and one on each new page**.
 `availableLanguage` is removed from `Service` **and** from
 `ProfessionalService` — the same defect existed on `/` and fixing it next door
 while leaving it in place would have been worse. `serviceType` and `provider`
 remain out of domain on `ProfessionalService`; they carry real information, the
 modelled fix is a different node shape, and it is recorded in `schema.ts` for
 the step-7 SEO pass rather than left as folklore.
 ⚠️ **The post-fix validator re-run on `/` is NOT RUN** — Google returned HTTP 302
 to `/sorry/` (rate limited) mid-verification. What is verified by reading `dist`
 is that the field is gone from all five pages.
 ### Structural changes the review produced
 - **`DefinitionGrid.astro`** — `/mediation/`'s `.formats` and both of
  `/arbitration/`'s `.cols` were one component under two names, with `.cols`
  already serving two content types on one page. `/practice/*` wants it a fourth
  time.
 - **`.grid-autofit` in `global.css`** — five copies of the same five-line comment
  explaining five identical declarations, plus a sixth differently-worded copy on
  `/about/`. One home for the `min(Nrem, 100%)` guard and its measurement.
 - **`/arbitration/`'s `.arc*` renamed to `.stage*`** — the names collided with
  `/about/`'s `.arc` block, which renders differently, and one of the two rules
  was dead on arrival because Astro's scoping kept them apart.
 - **`serviceType` is a union type**, not a `string`. Four lines of comment asking
  a caller not to pass an unscoped `"Arbitration"` became a build error.
 - **`CREDENTIALS.goalName`** — the designation name that was wrong on a public
  page last week is now read from the constant on both new pages instead of
  hand-typed a third and fourth time.
 ### Measured, not asserted
 Reflow at a 200% default font size (root 32 px), validated instrument, over HTTP:
 | root 32px | 320 | 360 | 390 | 414–1024 |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | `/mediation/` | 63 | 23 | 3 | 0 |
 | `/arbitration/` | 63 | 23 | 3 | 0 |
 | `/med-arb/` | 63 | 23 | **0** | 0 |
 Identical before and after the grid refactor, so it changed no rendering. At the
 **default** root, 0 at all eleven widths. Touch targets: `/arbitration/` and
 `/med-arb/` have **no** link under 44 px; `/mediation/`'s six are the
 `PracticeCard` chips, whose real hit area is the **342 × 284 px** card via
 `::after { inset: 0 }` — measured, and byte-identical to `/`.
 `docs/02`'s 1280 px figure was **`/`-only and generalised**: every non-home page
 measures **944**, because `SiteHeader` gates the tagline on `!isHome`. `/about/`
 was already 944 when it joined that table. Corrected there.
 Em-dashes per 1000 words: `/med-arb/` 13.3 → **3.8**, now the lowest of the four
 content pages (`/about/` 8.2). Second person on `/arbitration/` 7 → 3, the
 remainder being procedural (*"whatever your contract names"*) plus the shared
 `ContactBand` line that `/` and `/about/` also carry.
 ### Verified
 `npm run check` 0/0/0 · `eslint` + `prettier` clean · 5 pages · **0 `.js`** ·
 non-JSON-LD `<script>` **0** · minifier guard **0**, `animation-timeline` **5**
 surviving · one `<h1>` per page, no skipped levels · `Chartered
 Mediator-Arbitrator` **0** in `dist` · `TODO(pouya)` **0** in `dist` · JSON-LD:
 `Service` with scoped `serviceType` and `provider` resolving in-document,
 `FAQPage` built from the same array the page renders (3/3 questions and answers
 exact-match), no `BreadcrumbList`, no `worksFor`, no `memberOf` off `/about/`.
 **NOT run:** Lighthouse — tool unavailable until step 7 (R11). HTML validator.
 The `/` schema.org re-run — rate limited, stated above.
 ### Round 2 found four more, and two were defects in round 1's fixes
 D19's cap exists for exactly this, and it showed up in the change set that
 introduced D19.
 - **`DefinitionGrid` re-implemented the guard the extraction removed.**
  `.grid-autofit` uses `--grid-min`/18rem; the new component wrote its own
  `minmax(min(var(--def-min), 100%), 1fr)` with a different variable and a
  different default. A correction to the guard would have reached five call
  sites and silently missed three — the exact failure the extraction was
  justified by, reintroduced inside the extraction.
 - **`.stage-item` matched no CSS rule at all.** Dead markup on three list items,
  where `/about/`'s `.arc-item` counterpart carries a real rule. Removed.
 - **Second person, four instances**, on two pages where `/` and `/about/` have
  zero — and `docs/01`'s new annotation *quoted* one of them, so one in-scope
  spec recorded the phrasing another in-scope spec bars. All five pages now
  measure **0** excluding the shared `ContactBand` line.
 - **`PublishableServiceType`'s comment said its members are §4's rows
  "verbatim".** They are `docs/04`'s strings; §4's rows read *"Arbitration —
  sole arbitrator (commercial)"*. An implementer widening the union "verbatim
  from §4" would write the unscoped `Arbitration` the union exists to bar — in
  the comment that **is** the gate.
 **And it caught a number of mine that does not reproduce.** `docs/02`'s new
 block said the element sweep names *"six `PracticeCard` chips"*. Re-run: **three**
 (`right > clientWidth` — Construction, Technology, Shareholder). Six is the count
 of `article.card` with `scrollWidth > clientWidth` — a different predicate on a
 different element. Corrected, with the predicate stated, because a number in that
 table has to be re-runnable.
 **One process finding accepted in full: the tree moved during the review.** Three
 of its drafted findings were resolved by edits landing while it measured, which
 makes a reviewer's *negative* results worthless. It published md5s; all six match
 the committed tree, so this review is against what shipped. **Freeze the tree for
 the review window** — that is a `/build` Phase 3 lesson, not a code one.
 **Declined, with the reason:** four hand-written copies of the auto-fit guard
 remain in `index.astro` and `about.astro`. Converting them after the review cap
 is an unreviewed change to live CSS on two shipped pages. They are **listed by
 line number** in `global.css` so nobody reads that comment and believes the guard
 has one home, and they move at step 5 when `/practice/*` is in the same files.
 ### Open after this entry
 **Q54** — six drafted conduct commitments, none shipping, each a separate yes.
 **Q23**, **Q34**, **Q38** unchanged. `/fees/`, `/practice/*`, `/process/`,
 `/contact/` still 404 by build order (D11: nothing deploys until step 11).
 ---
 ## 2026-08-28 (z) — D19 bounds the review loop; nine rulings applied; and the loop immediately proved the point by finding a sweep that was claimed and never run
 **The session's own shape is the argument for D19.** Two review rounds, four
@@ -203,13 +203,29 @@ neutral.
 1. What the service is; the neutral's role stated plainly.
 2. **Formats:** full-day, half-day, shuttle, remote, hybrid.
-3. **Rules:** ADRIC Model Mediation Rules, or a bespoke protocol agreed by the
+3. **Rules:** the **ADRIC National Mediation Rules**, or a bespoke protocol
-   parties.
+   agreed by the parties.
   ⚠️ *This item read "ADRIC Model Mediation Rules" until 2026-08-28 and that is
   not the name of anything ADRIC publishes* — **0 occurrences** across all four
   of its rules pages, against **10** of "National Mediation Rules" on the
   document's own page. "Model" belongs to the **Model Dispute Resolution
   Clause**, a contract clause inside the rules. Sourced and reproducible:
   `docs/reference/adric-rules.md` Finding 1. The spec would have put a wrong
   institutional name on a public page, which is the `Chartered
   Mediator-Arbitrator` shape a second time — caught here only because R14 sent
   the fetch out before the copy was written.
 4. **What parties should bring** — briefs, documents, authority to settle.
 5. **Confidentiality and without-prejudice framing.**
 6. Practice areas → `/practice/*`.
 7. Fees → `/fees/`. Booking → `/contact/`.
 ⚠️ **This page carries no first-person conduct commitment, and that is
 deliberate.** How Pouya handles caucus material, and what he undertakes about a
 bespoke protocol, are claims about his practice with no §4 row. Two of them
 shipped here for one pass and were removed. Drafted for his ruling as **Q54(d)**
 and **(e)**; until he rules, the Confidentiality and Rules sections describe what
 an *agreement* settles, not what he promises.
 ### `/arbitration/`
 **Job:** the same, for arbitration — and to state the Q.Arb position honestly.
@@ -220,6 +236,13 @@ neutral.
   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.
 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
@@ -238,6 +261,13 @@ neutral.
   same one: an edit that was not re-read against the register.)*
 6. Fees, booking.
 ⚠️ **No first-person conduct commitment on this page either.** The Rules and
 Awards sections say what a process and an award *should* settle and contain, not
 what Pouya undertakes to do — **Q54(e)** and **(f)** are drafted and unruled, and
 both shipped here in the first person for one pass. The `<title>` names a
 **service**, never "Sole Arbitrator": §4 grants exactly one practised role and it
 is "Mediator".
 ### `/med-arb/`
 **Job:** own a term few Canadian neutrals explain well, and frame the C.Med-Arb
@@ -245,9 +275,31 @@ endpoint.
 **Search intent:** `med-arb Canada`, `what is med-arb`, `arb-med`.
 1. What Med-Arb is; how it differs from Arb-Med.
   ⚠️ *As built, the page flags the confusion and does **not define arb-med***.
   No source for a definition of arb-med is committed, and this repository does
   not publish a definition of a third party's process from recall (R14). The
   page says only that the two are one syllable apart, that the processes are
   not interchangeable, and that a reader should check which one their contract
   names — against the rule set the contract adopts, not against this page. **It
   states no differentia at all**, because on a page that defines med-arb as
   mediation→arbitration, "the phases run in a different order" *is* a
   definition of arb-med by inversion. That wording shipped for one pass and
   `claims-auditor` caught it. Define arb-med when a source is committed, or add
   an **Arb-Med** row to `AGENTS.md` §11 — not before.
 2. The procedural fairness objection, addressed head-on rather than elided.
   ⚠️ *The page answers it at the level of **process design** — what a med-arb
   agreement has to settle before the mediation phase begins. It does **not**
   carry Pouya's own protocol commitments, which are claims about his practice
   with no §4 row.* Three are drafted for his approval in **Q54**; the section is
   incomplete until he rules.
 3. When it fits and when it does not.
 4. The C.Med-Arb designation and why it is the practice's stated endpoint.
 5. **The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules**, which this spec did not mention and which exist:
   a published rule set, put to ADRIC's membership in 2019, drafted for domestic
   commercial disputes and designed to work with its Mediation and Arbitration
   Rules. Sourced: `docs/reference/adric-rules.md` Finding 2. Quote ADRIC's own
   framing rather than paraphrasing it, and **keep its superlatives inside the
   quotation marks** — Finding 5 lists the two not to lift.
 This page is a strong candidate for the best-performing page on the site.
 Search demand exists, competition is thin, and it maps exactly to the brand's
@@ -245,6 +245,28 @@ Not a polish pass. A build requirement.
  | `/about/` as first built | 38 px | 68 px | 108 px |
  | `.designation-part` `white-space: nowrap` removed (the separator is held by an NBSP instead) and `overflow-wrap: anywhere` on `.hero-h` | **0 px** | **23 px** | **63 px** |
  **Step 4's three pages added 2026-08-28**, and they needed no fix of their own
  — the guards this table produced were applied while writing them rather than
  after measuring:
  | Page | 390 px | 360 px | 320 px |
  |---|---|---|---|
  | `/mediation/` | 3 px | 23 px | 63 px |
  | `/arbitration/` | 3 px | 23 px | 63 px |
  | `/med-arb/` | **0 px** | 23 px | 63 px |
  At the **default** root size all three are **0 px at every width measured**.
  The element-level sweep at 320/root-32, predicate `right > clientWidth`,
  names **three** `PracticeCard` chips on `/mediation/` — Construction,
  Technology, Shareholder — plus the header and footer brand elements, which
  appear on all five pages. *(This read "six" for one pass. Six is the count of
  `article.card` with `scrollWidth > clientWidth`, a different predicate on a
  different element; `adversarial-reviewer` re-ran it and no predicate yields
  six chips. A number in this table has to be re-runnable, which is the whole
  reason the table exists.)* All three are byte-identical to `/`'s — same
  widths, same offsets, same text — so step 4 introduced no new element-level
  overflow.
  Two findings from that page specifically. The `nowrap` was **introduced as a
  fix** for an orphaned `·` at the end of a wrapped line, and it made the whole
  designation item unbreakable — a fix that created a reflow regression, caught
@@ -262,9 +284,14 @@ Not a polish pass. A build requirement.
  Two things worth keeping. **`overflow-wrap: break-word` permits a break at
  layout time but does not reduce min-content size** — `anywhere` does, and that
-  distinction was the whole of one of those fixes. And 1280 px stays **602 px**
+  distinction was the whole of one of those fixes. And 1280 px stays over, from the header's
-  over, from the header's deliberate `flex-wrap: nowrap` above 66 rem plus
+  deliberate `flex-wrap: nowrap` above 66 rem plus `white-space: nowrap` on the
-  `white-space: nowrap` on the brand name; the 320 px residual is the same header
+  brand name — **602 px on `/` and 944 px on every other page**, because
  `SiteHeader` gates the tagline on `!isHome`, so the masthead is wider
  everywhere except home. *(This read a flat "602 px" until 2026-08-28. That
  figure was measured on `/` and generalised; `/about/` was already 944 when it
  was added to this table, and step 4's three pages are 944 too. Found by
  `adversarial-reviewer`.)* The 320 px residual is the same header
  plus the display headline's 104 px floor. Undoing either re-opens the measured
  step-1 header decision, so they stand. All of this is beyond what this floor
  requires — page zoom is clean — so it is a robustness margin rather than a
@@ -384,7 +384,14 @@ Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:
 - [ ] Every factual claim appears in `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified
 - [ ] No matter counts, settlement rates, dollar figures, or time-to-award stats
- [ ] No testimonials, endorsements, or third-party quotes
+- [ ] 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 commenced August 2026, never as held or nearly complete
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ JSON-LD only. Validate against Google's Rich Results Test before cutover.
 |---|---|---|
 | `Person` | `/about/`, referenced site-wide | **Emitted:** `name`, `url`, `jobTitle`, `description`, `alumniOf` (Bond University), `knowsLanguage` (en, fa), `hasCredential` (Q.Med), `sameAs` (LinkedIn), `email`, `image`. **Emitted on `/about/` only:** `memberOf` — the four §4 memberships as `Organization` nodes (Q53, ruled 2026-08-28). `/` shows no memberships, so its Person node omits it: structured data represents the page it sits on. **Withheld:** `worksFor` — Q49(b) declined the row 2026-08-28; `provider → Person → worksFor` would assert a same-entity claim §4 does not row. *(This enumeration listed `worksFor` as emitted while the same cell said it was withheld, and omitted `url` and `email`, which are — wrong in both directions. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies. Found by `adversarial-reviewer`.)* **CHANGED 2026-08-28 — Q47.** This row read *"`jobTitle` = 'Director of Firm Operations'; omit `worksFor`"*, which put the boutique title on a node whose `url` is this ADR practice's `/about/` — so a consumer could attach it to this entity. Pouya's ruling reframes the field: `jobTitle` describes **this practice**, not the boutique role, which D16 keeps unnamed. The visible role line is unchanged and still reads "Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation and ADR boutique". **THE VALUE IS `PRACTICE_JOB_TITLE` IN `src/data/site.ts` AND THIS ROW DOES NOT RESTATE IT** — §7's rule, applied to a string with a live revert trigger on it: this row carried the literal text for one pass, and `adversarial-reviewer` noted it would go stale the moment the constant moved. Cite, do not copy. **`worksFor` IS WITHHELD** — set for one pass under Q47, then reverted: `ProfessionalService.provider` is this Person, so `provider → Person → worksFor` asserts the same-entity claim `schema.ts` explicitly declines, and §4 says "alongside the practice" where the ruling says "operates through". **`memberOf` is emitted** — see the sentence above; Q53 closed 2026-08-28. *(This cell asserted `memberOf` was both emitted and withheld for one pass, which is the defect it already records itself being caught for on `worksFor`, in the opposite direction. The enumeration is the part an implementer copies.)* See `src/data/schema.ts` |
 | `ProfessionalService` | Home | `areaServed` Toronto/Ontario, `serviceType` **Mediation / Commercial arbitration / Mediation-arbitration (med-arb)** — *scoped 2026-08-28 on `claims-auditor`'s finding; this row instructed the unscoped class form "Mediation/Arbitration" that Q39 struck and that `schema.ts` deliberately does not follow. Family arbitration carries prescribed training and has its own NOT OFFERED row, so unscoped "Arbitration" is the struck universal in a field nobody reads. Do not widen these strings without a §4 row to widen them from* — `provider` → Person, `priceRange` once `/fees/` is real. **Never `LegalService`** — schema.org defines it as a business providing legal advice and *representation*, which asserts in machine-readable form exactly what D13 bars and §4 Forbidden calls out |
-| `Service` | Each practice page | `serviceType`, `provider` → Person, `areaServed` |
+| `Service` | **`/mediation/`, `/arbitration/`, `/med-arb/`** and each practice page | `serviceType`, `provider` → Person, `areaServed`. **The Person node travels in the same `@graph`** so `provider: {'@id'}` resolves in one document rather than relying on a crawler joining two — `homeGraph`'s reasoning, applied. `serviceType` is scoped where §4 scopes it: *Commercial arbitration*, never a bare "Arbitration". No `BreadcrumbList` on the three — one hop from the root, no visible breadcrumb, and this spec requires the markup to match the visible one |
 | `Article` | Each article | `headline`, `description`, `datePublished`, `dateModified`, `author` → Person, `image` |
 | `BreadcrumbList` | All nested pages | Matches visible breadcrumbs |
 | `FAQPage` | `/for-parties/`, `/med-arb/` | Only where the visible page genuinely is Q&A. Never fabricate questions to farm a rich result |
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
 # The extracted text behind `../adric-rules.md`
 **Why this directory exists, and why it matters more here than for ADRIO.**
 Every term count in `../adric-rules.md` — including Finding 1, which corrected a
 rule-set name `docs/01` had directed onto a public page — was run against these
 extracts, not against the raw HTML. R14: a count taken from an artefact nobody
 can reach is unverifiable by construction.
 **And unlike the ADRIO fetch, the HTML digests here do not reproduce.** The
 served pages change on every request. `../adric-rules.md` §Provenance records
 the two measured digests and the four causes read out of the diff. **The
 extracts below are byte-stable across those re-fetches** — verified, not
 assumed: a second fetch of the mediation-rules page produced different HTML and
 an identical `.txt`.
 So for these pages, **the `.txt` files are the artefact and the digests are only
 a record of what was fetched.**
 ## Reproducing
 ```sh
 curl -sSL -o <slug>.html "https://adric.ca/rules-codes/<path>/"
 node ../adrio-extract/extract.mjs <slug>.html > <slug>.txt
 ```
 The four URLs and their slugs are in the provenance table of
 `../adric-rules.md`.
 **`extract.mjs` is not duplicated here.** It is the same unmodified script
 committed at `../adrio-extract/extract.mjs`, and a second copy is a second thing
 to keep true — `CLAUDE.md`'s single-source rule applied to a tool rather than to
 a fact. If you change it, both reference documents' counts have to be re-run.
 ## The one command that reproduces Finding 1
 ```sh
 for f in *.txt; do
  printf '%-40s %s\n' "$f" "$(grep -o -F 'Model Mediation Rules' "$f" | wc -l)"
 done
 ```
 Expect `0` on all four. `grep -o -F 'National Mediation Rules'` returns 10 on
 `rules-codes__national-mediation-rules.txt`.
@@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
 Rules & Codes - ADR Institute of Canada
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 ADR Connect - Directory of Professionals Affiliate Member Portals
 ADRIC Member Portal
 Language:
 en
 fr
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 ADRIC By-Laws
 Learn More
 Federation MoU
 Learn More
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 Learn More
 ADRIC Mediation Rules
 Learn More
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Learn More
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Learn More
 Privacy Policy
 Learn More
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Learn More
 Corporate Members
 News
 Abusive Arbitration Clauses in Contracts of Adhesion: The Québec Court of Appeal Draws the Line
 The Role of Law in Mediation: Between Authority and Autonomy
 Preserving Mediation’s Distinct Role in Civil Justice Reform: The Promise and Peril in Ontario’s Civil Rules Review
 Contact
 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. 705-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P5G4 1-877-475-4353 info@adric.ca
 © 2026 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Subscribe
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules - ADR Institute of Canada
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 ADR Connect - Directory of Professionals Affiliate Member Portals
 ADRIC Member Portal
 Language:
 en
 fr
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 The ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 As part of ADRIC’s role in protecting the public and promoting best practices in ADR, the need became apparent for specialized rules of procedure for med-arb, so a Task Force was formed with a dedicated working group of med-arb professionals. The Task Force completed an initial draft of the Rules, which were then referred to the Rules Committee for its consideration.
 The Committee followed past practice by consulting with the membership at large as the Rules were being reviewed, and a discussion draft of the ADRIC Med-Arb Rules was presented to the membership at ADRIC’s Annual Conference in November 2019. The Committee received extensive and very helpful feedback. The Committee also followed past practice by sending the draft ADRIC Med-Arb Rules for “wordsmithing” by a plain language specialist and many of the recommended plain language revisions were adopted.
 Med-Arb is not merely the merging of separate mediation and arbitration processes, but a unique process designed to meet the needs of particular disputants. It involves nuances and complexities that can be fine-tuned to the needs of the parties as a customized dispute resolution process, which requires a high level of practitioner competence to do successfully.
 The Rules are designed to work in tandem with ADRIC’s existing Mediation Rules and Arbitration Rules, integrating seamlessly.
 Download the ADRIC Med-Arb Rules:
 Booklet format
 8.5 x 11 format
 Designation : We have also developed criteria for a specialized designation: the Chartered Med-Arb
 Course : We have worked with course designers to develop the Med-Arb Foundational Course. See the training schedule .
 Note: This course is presented in English.
 ADRIC is grateful for the exceptional work of the following volunteers who gave so generously of their time and expertise to develop the Rules and Designation Criteria:
 Sara Ahlstrom, C.Med
 Anik Béland
 Glen Bell, C.Arb
 Colm Brannigan, FCIArb, C.Arb, C.Med
 Genevieve Chornenki, C.Arb, C.Med
 Olivier Després, C.Med, C.Arb
 Barry Effler
 Martina Faith
 Angus Gunn, Q.C.
 Arlene Henry, Q.C., C.Med
 Jim McCartney, C.Arb, C.Med
 David McCutcheon, C.Arb
 Gerry Nera, C.Med, Q.Arb
 Louise Novinger Grant, Q.C.
 Elton Simoes, C.Med, Q.Arb
 Marjorie Lee Thompson
 Rick Weiler
 Michael Welsh, Q.C., FCIArb, C.Med, Q.Arb
 How can I comment to enhance the next revision?
 Send email or correspondence to the Executive Director: [email protected]
 MODEL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
 Parties who agree to submit disputes under the Med-Arb Rules may use this clause in their agreement:
 All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or in respect of any legal relationship associated with or derived from this agreement, will be finally resolved by Med-Arb under the Med-Arb Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. The Seat of Arbitration under the ADRIC Arbitration Rules will be [specify]. The language of the Med-Arb will be [specify].
 TYPES OF DISPUTES TO WHICH THE MED-ARB RULES APPLY
 Although the Med-Arb Rules were drafted to assist in resolving domestic commercial disputes, parties may want to apply them to international or non-commercial disputes. [1]
 Parties should examine the Med-Arb Rules to ensure that their provisions are appropriate and conform with applicable legislation.
 [1] In Québec, Article 2639 of the Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c. CCQ-1991, provides that disputes over the status and capacity of persons, family matters, or other matters of public order may not be submitted to arbitration.
 ADRIC ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
 To commence a med-arb, send the Notice of Request to med-arbitrate to each Respondent under the Agreement and to ADRIC at [email protected] , and courier the Commencement Fee as set out in Schedule A of the Rules plus HST to ADRIC. Cheques are to be made payable to ADR Institute of Canada.
 The Case Service Fee is to be remitted by the Respondent(s) with their Statement of Defence and/or Counterclaim (see Schedule A).
 Templates : We regret we are not able to provide templates as the content of any such agreements would need to be the subject of legal advice.
 Corporate Members
 News
 Abusive Arbitration Clauses in Contracts of Adhesion: The Québec Court of Appeal Draws the Line
 The Role of Law in Mediation: Between Authority and Autonomy
 Preserving Mediation’s Distinct Role in Civil Justice Reform: The Promise and Peril in Ontario’s Civil Rules Review
 Contact
 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. 705-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P5G4 1-877-475-4353 info@adric.ca
 © 2026 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Subscribe
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules - ADR Institute of Canada
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 ADR Connect - Directory of Professionals Affiliate Member Portals
 ADRIC Member Portal
 Language:
 en
 fr
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 The ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 Important Update on the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) Arbitration Rules:
 ADRIC has adopted new Arbitration Rules and a new Arbitrator Appointment Protocol, effective March 1, 2025. This modernization effort aims to support both domestic and international arbitration with up-to-date procedures and streamlined institutional support. The ADRIC Arbitration Rules have been the leading choice for Canadian businesses since 2002.
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules – Effective 2025
 ADRIC Arbitrator Appointment Protocol
 CLICK FOR ARBITRATION FORMS
 The ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) has developed forms to aid parties pursuing arbitration under the ADRIC Arbitration Rules. To file your case with ADRIC, you will need to complete the appropriate form below.
 Notice to Arbitrate
 Request to Administer the Arbitration
 Request for the appointment of an arbitrator
 Application for Urgent Interim Measures
 Application to Challenge an Arbitrator
 Notice of Appeal
 “The new Arbitration Rules reflect two years of thoughtful discussion and analysis by a committed group of arbitrators and arbitration counsel representing all regions in Canada. Their focus has been on providing a framework for arbitration as a means of resolving disputes in a full, fair and final manner using up-to-date arbitration procedures and streamlined institutional support when needed.”
 — Comment by William G. Horton, C.Arb, co-chair and discussion leader of the ADRIC Modernization Committee that drafted the new Arbitration Rules.
 Highlights of the New Rules:
 Customized ADRIC services based on a flexible “à la carte” menu tailored to meet your specific needs
 Elimination of distinction between international and non-international disputes
 Enhanced arbitrator appointment process
 Expedited and integrated challenge process
 Conflicts disclosure processes and standards
 Practical precedents that can be customized
 Checklist for first procedural meeting
 Draft first procedural order
 Standard terms of appointment of an arbitrator
 Standard statement of arbitrator independence and impartiality
 Important Notice : Our team is here to provide clarity and support, ensuring you have the information you need. Questions should be directed to ADRIC Case Services at [email protected] . However, please note that the ultimate decision-maker in any arbitration process is the Tribunal. For personalized legal advice, we strongly recommend consulting with your own lawyer.
 MODEL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
 Parties who agree to arbitrate under the Rules may use the following clause in their agreement:
 “All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or in relation to any legal relationship associated with or derived from this agreement, will be resolved by final and binding arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. [or the Simplified Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc.] The Seat of Arbitration will be [specify]. The language of the arbitration will be [specify].”
 ADRIC ARBITRATION INFORMATION TO ARBITRATORS
 Do you wish to be considered for an arbitrator appointment? The arbitrator appointment criteria are listed in the arbitrator appointment protocol above.
 A candidate who wishes to be considered for an arbitrator appointment must:
 Be a member in good standing of ADRIC and a regional affiliate;
 Confirm that they carry at least $1 million in arbitrator errors and omissions insurance;
 Commit to responding promptly to inquiries from ADRIC concerning their willingness to accept an appointment, failing which they may not be considered for appointments;
 Advise whether there is any equity, diversity, and inclusion information they would like to be considered by the sub-committee in making Direct Appointments or generating Candidate Lists; and
 Submit an ADR Connect profile that contains the following information:
 i. their area(s) of expertise;
 ii. their professional arbitration designations, if any;
 iii. whether they wish to be considered for Interim Arbitrator or Challenge Adjudicator appointments;
 iv. their experience as arbitrator and/or arbitration counsel;
 v. their standard rate(s);
 vi. any other information they deem relevant; and
 vii. at the candidate’s option, any equity, diversity, and inclusion information they would like to be considered.
 Any member who wishes to be considered for appointment as a Challenge Adjudicator or Interim Arbitrator must confirm that they are willing to accept an appointment on the basis of Schedules B and C of the Rules.
 All requests for Direct Appointments or to generate Candidate Lists must be sent by email to ADRIC Case Services at [email protected] .
 All requests by one or more parties must include the following information:
 Party Disclosure required under the Rules;
 full names of all parties, their addresses, and other contact information, if known;
 names of all legal counsel or party representatives, their addresses, and other contact information, if known;
 brief description of the dispute, without argument;
 copy of the arbitration agreement, if any;
 amount(s) in dispute, if any;
 any qualifications the parties request or require of the arbitrator, including any subject area expertise;
 time constraints, if any, imposed by the parties, the arbitration agreement, or the nature of the dispute;
 whether appointment of an Arbitrator, Interim Arbitrator or Challenge Adjudicator is requested and, if so, all information required under the Rules; and
 any other information the party making the request considers necessary.
 All party requests will also be copied to those identified in paragraphs 7b) and c) above, unless the request is for appointment of an ex parte Interim Arbitrator as permitted pursuant to the Rules.
 We are grateful to the following individuals:
 Arbitrator Appointment Committee:
 Megan Keenberg, Joan Cotie, Olivier Després, David Eaton, Jim McLandress, Lisa Munro, and Rachel Howie.
 Arbitration Modernization Project (AMP):
 William G. Horton, Jim McCartney, Jim Musgrave, Glen Bell, Mary Comeau, Stephen Drymer, Bryan Duguid, Angus Gunn, Joshua Karton, Lisa Munro, David McCutcheon, Emily McMurtry, and Lauren Tomasich .
 Advisory Committee to the AMP:
 Brian Casey, Megan Keenberg, Jack Marshall, Eric Morgan, Murray Smith, Doug Stollery, and Hon. Neil Wittmann.
 Arbitrator Appointment Protocol Sub-Committee:
 Lisa Munro, Amy Crosbie, Stephen Drymer, Douglas Harrison, Matti Lemmens, Jim McCartney, Sabri Shawa, and Junior Sirivar.
 Any comments or suggestions concerning the New Arbitration Rules may be emailed to the ADRIC Executive Director at [email protected] .
 Click here for previous versions of the Rules.
 Corporate Members
 News
 Abusive Arbitration Clauses in Contracts of Adhesion: The Québec Court of Appeal Draws the Line
 The Role of Law in Mediation: Between Authority and Autonomy
 Preserving Mediation’s Distinct Role in Civil Justice Reform: The Promise and Peril in Ontario’s Civil Rules Review
 Contact
 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. 705-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P5G4 1-877-475-4353 info@adric.ca
 © 2026 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Subscribe
@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
 National Mediation Rules - ADR Institute of Canada
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 ADR Connect - Directory of Professionals Affiliate Member Portals
 ADRIC Member Portal
 Language:
 en
 fr
 About
 About Us
 Board of Directors
 Staff & Contact Us
 Operational Committees
 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI)
 ADRIC Regional Affiliates
 McGowan Awards
 Refund & Cancellation Policy
 Partners
 Job Opportunities
 Rules & Codes
 ADRIC By-laws
 Federation MoU
 ADRIC Arbitration Rules
 National Mediation Rules
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules
 Ethics & Professional Practice
 Code of Ethics
 Code of Conduct
 Conflict of Interest
 Complaints & Discipline Policy
 Privacy Policy
 Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Vision
 Membership
 Become a Member
 Member Benefits
 Membership Renewals
 Events
 ADRIC 2026 National Conference
 Webinars
 ADRIC Past Conferences
 ADRIC 2025: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2024: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2023: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2022: Annual National Conference
 ADRIC 2021 Conference Webinar Series
 Home
 Program
 Sponsor
 Publications & News
 ADRIC News – Monthly Newsletter
 ADR Perspectives
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Canadian Arbitration and Mediation Journal
 Editorial Board
 Book Reviews
 Media Centre
 Marketing Opportunities
 ADRIC Annual Report
 Announcements
 ADR Training
 Construction Adjudication Training Program
 Correspondence Course in Arbitration
 Med-Arb Workshop
 National Introductory Arbitration Course
 National Introductory Mediation Course
 ADRIC Accredited Courses
 ADRIC Professional Practice Manuals
 Disability Accessibility Guidebook
 Designations & CEE
 Continuing Education & Engagement
 Professional Designations
 Arbitrator Designations
 Mediator Designations
 Chartered Med-Arbitrator
 Construction Adjudicator
 Family Practice Mediation
 IMI Recognition
 Indigenous Practitioner Inclusion Initiative
 Services
 Construction Adjudication
 CTA-OTC Arbitrator Roster
 Arbitrator Appointments
 Mediator Appointments
 ADRIC Med-Arb Rules Case Administration Services
 Custom ADR Systems and Rosters Development
 In-House Designations
 The ADRIC National Mediation Rules
 The National Mediation Rules provide rules for initiating mediations, including the appointment of a mediator should the parties be unable to come to an agreement.
 The National Mediation Rules document contains the following:
 Mediation Rules including Code of Conduct
 Standard Form Agreement to Mediate (Schedule B)
 Administration fees payable to the ADR Institute of Canada- see Schedule A of the Rules
 Model Dispute Resolution Clause
 The Model Dispute Resolution Clause set out below is of particular importance to those drafting or entering into contracts. Commercial contracts drafted by law firms of all sizes across Canada commonly contain a clause indicating that any dispute that arises with respect to the contract will be administered by ADR Canada, or one of its affiliates, pursuant to the National Mediation Rules or the ADRIC Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada.
 The National Mediation Rules provide a Model Dispute Resolution Clause for Mediation and /or Arbitration:
 All disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or in respect of any legal relationship associated with or derived from this agreement, shall be mediated pursuant to the National Mediation Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. The place of mediation shall be [specify City and Province of Canada]. The language of the mediation shall be English or French [specify language].
 Important Update on the ADR Institute of Canada (ADRIC) National Mediation Rules: As of 2025, the ADRIC Mediation Committee is currently reviewing the Mediation Rules to ensure they remain current, practical, and aligned with best practices in the field. In the meantime, the existing rules remain in effect and should continue to be used until any updates are formally adopted.
 Corporate Members
 News
 Abusive Arbitration Clauses in Contracts of Adhesion: The Québec Court of Appeal Draws the Line
 The Role of Law in Mediation: Between Authority and Autonomy
 Preserving Mediation’s Distinct Role in Civil Justice Reform: The Promise and Peril in Ontario’s Civil Rules Review
 Contact
 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. 705-130 Albert Street, Ottawa, ON K1P5G4 1-877-475-4353 info@adric.ca
 © 2026 ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Subscribe
@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
 # ADRIC rules and codes — the published rule sets, in ADRIC's own words
 **Why this file exists.** `docs/01-architecture.md` directs `/mediation/` to
 name *"ADRIC Model Mediation Rules"* and `/arbitration/` to name *"ADRIC, ADR
 Chambers, ad hoc"*. A rule set's **name** is a fact about a published document,
 so under Q46(b)'s standard it may be published — but only from a source, not
 from recall. R14: a claim whose artefact is unreachable is unverifiable by
 construction. This is the same fetch-before-writing that caught
 `Chartered Mediator-Arbitrator` (`docs/reference/adrio-designations.md`).
 **It caught one immediately. See Finding 1.**
 ## Provenance
 | | |
 |---|---|
 | Retrieved | **2026-08-28** |
 | Method | `curl -sSL` — redirects followed, exit status read, stderr not suppressed |
 | Text extracts | `docs/reference/adric-extract/`, produced by the committed `adrio-extract/extract.mjs` (same script, unmodified) |
 | URL | HTTP | bytes | text | sha256 |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | `https://adric.ca/rules-codes/` | 200 | 120908 | 4579 | `e7281b28e3d739f8d91985d5094fbdff7dea24e3a360d00ec32e387e32e9a1c9` |
 | `https://adric.ca/rules-codes/national-mediation-rules/` | 200 | 110894 | 6130 | `c55fe482da8aa7a69377703b9192bda0d926f012e45a90ca5ce5d27a7b0344ac` |
 | `https://adric.ca/rules-codes/arbrules/` | 200 | 122211 | 11004 | `07b9850f41bbf40f6ce3a3778876853091ac25a6bb255ef0c4b2827af69a937e` |
 | `https://adric.ca/rules-codes/adric-med-arb-rules/` | 200 | 114700 | 8445 | `153479af8235022170b31c9673262f4e10a51e9f99fcffcb3e0c7dd23d037393` |
 ⚠️ **THE HTML DIGESTS DRIFT ON EVERY REQUEST. THE TEXT EXTRACTS DO NOT.**
 Unlike the ADRIO fetch, where the digests were stable and are therefore stamped
 as the artefact, these pages change per response. **Measured, not assumed** — the
 mediation-rules page was fetched twice, three minutes apart:
 ```
 first : c55fe482da8aa7a69377703b9192bda0d926f012e45a90ca5ce5d27a7b0344ac
 second: e9f74014ec04e8fcab0f1cbbd75ef4cb104c8d94992b93c832d41c8259ce78b2
 text identical? YES
 ```
 Four causes, read out of the diff rather than guessed at:
 1. a per-render page-builder class suffix (`highend_6a91df2f53035` →
   `highend_6a91dfca9a8be`);
 2. a **rotating corporate-member logo carousel** in the footer — nine sponsor
   logos, reordered per request;
 3. **Cloudflare email obfuscation**, which re-keys the `email-protection#…`
   hash per response;
 4. a **Cloudflare challenge-platform token** (`__CF$cv$params` `r` and `t`).
 *(This paragraph first asserted "a WordPress nonce and rotating asset query
 strings" — a guess, written before the second fetch. None of the four causes is
 that. Corrected before commit, and recorded because a guessed cause for an
 observed difference is exactly what `CLAUDE.md` bars.)*
 **So the stable artefact is `docs/reference/adric-extract/`**, and the term
 counts below were run against those extracts. A digest mismatch on re-fetch is
 **not** evidence the content changed — re-extract and compare the text.
 Also on the record: `https://adric.ca/rules/` returns **403**, and
 `/mediation-rules/` and `/arbitration-rules/` return **404**. The working paths
 are all under `/rules-codes/`. Recorded because a 403 body is 52 bytes and reads
 like an empty page.
 ---
 ## Finding 1 — "ADRIC Model Mediation Rules" is NOT the name of anything
 `docs/01-architecture.md` §`/mediation/` item 3 directed the page to name the
 **"ADRIC Model Mediation Rules"**. The string does not exist in ADRIC's
 materials.
 | Term | rules-codes | national-mediation-rules | arbrules | adric-med-arb-rules |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | `Model Mediation Rules` | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
 | `National Mediation Rules` | 2 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
 | `ADRIC Mediation Rules` | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
 | `ADRIC Arbitration Rules` | 3 | 3 | 7 | 3 |
 | `ADRIC Med-Arb Rules` | 5 | 4 | 4 | 9 |
 **Where "Model" actually belongs.** ADRIC publishes a **Model Dispute Resolution
 Clause** — a contract clause, inside the rules document. The spec's phrase
 conflates the clause's name with the rules' name.
 **The canonical title, from the page's own heading:** *"The ADRIC National
 Mediation Rules"*. The Model Clause it publishes uses the same form —
 *"shall be mediated pursuant to the **National Mediation Rules** of the ADR
 Institute of Canada, Inc."*
 **One inconsistency in ADRIC's own materials, recorded so it is not read later
 as our error.** The `/rules-codes/` index has a card labelled *"ADRIC Mediation
 Rules"* (1 occurrence, card link text) while its nav and the document itself say
 *"National Mediation Rules"*. **Use `ADRIC National Mediation Rules`** — the
 document's own title, and the form inside the model clause.
 ## Finding 2 — the three rule sets, with the facts a page may state
 **ADRIC National Mediation Rules.** *"The National Mediation Rules provide rules
 for initiating mediations, including the appointment of a mediator should the
 parties be unable to come to an agreement."* The document contains: Mediation
 Rules including a Code of Conduct; a Standard Form Agreement to Mediate
 (Schedule B); ADRIC administration fees (Schedule A); and the Model Dispute
 Resolution Clause.
 ⚠️ **Currency caveat, verbatim:** *"As of 2025, the ADRIC Mediation Committee is
 currently reviewing the Mediation Rules… In the meantime, the existing rules
 remain in effect and should continue to be used until any updates are formally
 adopted."* So do not date them, and do not describe them as recently revised.
 **ADRIC Arbitration Rules.** *"ADRIC has adopted new Arbitration Rules and a new
 Arbitrator Appointment Protocol, effective March 1, 2025."* Published as
 **"ADRIC Arbitration Rules – Effective 2025"**, alongside an **ADRIC Arbitrator
 Appointment Protocol** and named forms: Notice to Arbitrate, Request to
 Administer the Arbitration, Request for the appointment of an arbitrator,
 Application for Urgent Interim Measures, Application to Challenge an Arbitrator,
 Notice of Appeal.
 **ADRIC Med-Arb Rules.** A discussion draft was presented to the membership at
 ADRIC's Annual Conference in **November 2019**. Two sentences are directly
 useful to `/med-arb/`, both verbatim:
 > "Med-Arb is not merely the merging of separate mediation and arbitration
 > processes, but a unique process designed to meet the needs of particular
 > disputants. It involves nuances and complexities that can be fine-tuned to the
 > needs of the parties as a customized dispute resolution process, **which
 > requires a high level of practitioner competence to do successfully**."
 > "The Rules are designed to work in tandem with ADRIC's existing Mediation
 > Rules and Arbitration Rules, integrating seamlessly."
 **Scope, verbatim:** *"Although the Med-Arb Rules were drafted to assist in
 resolving domestic **commercial** disputes, parties may want to apply them to
 international or non-commercial disputes."* That matches §4's commercial scoping
 without being cited for it — it is ADRIC's statement about its own rules, not
 authority for what this practice offers.
 ADRIC also publishes a **Med-Arb Foundational Course** (in English) and, per this
 page, *"criteria for a specialized designation: the Chartered Med-Arb"*.
 ## Finding 3 — "Chartered Med-Arbitrator" is corroborated by a second body
 `Chartered Med-Arbitrator` appears **2 times on every one of the four pages** —
 it is ADRIC's own navigation label, under *Designations & CEE → Professional
 Designations*. So the long form §11 now carries, sourced from **ADRIO**, is
 independently the form **ADRIC** uses in its nav. The body prose on the Med-Arb
 Rules page uses the short *"Chartered Med-Arb"*
 **once** — *"criteria for a specialized designation: the Chartered Med-Arb"*.
 ⚠️ *This read "3 occurrences" for one pass. `grep -o -F 'Chartered Med-Arb'`
 does return 3, but **two of the three are substrings of the nav label
 "Chartered Med-Arbitrator"** counted separately one sentence above. `grep -o
 'Chartered Med-Arb(?!itrator)'` returns 1. That is `CLAUDE.md`'s "a grep that
 matches is not a finding until you read what it matched", committed inside the
 document whose whole purpose is sourced counts. Found by
 `adversarial-reviewer`.* **Neither body writes "Mediator-Arbitrator" anywhere in this
 fetch.**
 ## Finding 4 — what is NOT in this fetch, and must not be inferred from it
 - **The rules' actual provisions.** Every page above is a *landing page*; the
  rules themselves are PDFs behind download links and were **not** fetched. So
  this file supports naming a rule set and describing what a document contains
  at the level its own landing page describes it. It supports **no statement of
  what any rule requires, permits or provides** — including anything about
  consent mechanics, caucus information, or the switch from mediation to
  arbitration in med-arb. Write those as this practice's own protocol, or not at
  all.
 - **Anything about ADR Chambers.** `docs/01` §`/arbitration/` names it as a rule
  option. It is not sourced here. `docs/07-fees.md` cites ADR Chambers only for
  *published fee ranges*, which is a different claim.
 - **Legal effect.** Nothing here establishes the enforceability of an award, in
  Ontario or anywhere. §4 bars this repository from concluding a proposition of
  law.
 ## Finding 5 — ADRIC superlatives deliberately NOT lifted
 Same treatment as `adrio-designations.md` Finding 5. These are ADRIC's marketing
 claims about itself and **must not travel onto this site**, where §4 Forbidden
 bars superlatives:
 - *"The ADRIC Arbitration Rules have been **the leading choice** for Canadian
  businesses since 2002."*
 - *"integrating **seamlessly**"* — quoted above inside a quotation, and it stays
  inside one.
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
 ---
 /**
 * A `<dl>` of term/description pairs on an auto-fitting grid.
 *
 * EXTRACTED AT STEP 4 ON `adversarial-reviewer`'S FINDING, and the finding was
 * that `/mediation/`'s `.formats` and `/arbitration/`'s `.cols` were the same
 * component under two names — identical markup, near-identical CSS, and
 * `.cols` was already serving two different content types on one page.
 * `/practice/*` at step 5 wants it a fourth time. Same argument that extracted
 * `ContactBand`: two call sites, one already divergent, pages to come.
 *
 * `<dl>` RATHER THAN A DIV GRID, for `CredentialRow`'s reason: each pair is a
 * term and its description, so a screen reader gets them as an associated pair
 * rather than as a visual arrangement. Wrapping each `<dt>`/`<dd>` in a `<div>`
 * inside the `<dl>` is valid HTML and is what makes the grid tractable.
 *
 * A `<dt>` IS NOT A HEADING and must not become one. These sit under the
 * section's `<h2>`; promoting them to `<h3>` would be a heading level that adds
 * nothing to the outline, and `docs/02` forbids skipped levels either way.
 */
 interface Props {
  items: ReadonlyArray<{ name: string; body: string }>;
  /** The grid's per-column floor, passed to `.grid-autofit` as `--grid-min`.
   *  The `min(N, 100%)` guard lives there, in one place. */
  minColumn?: string;
 }
 const { items, minColumn = '17rem' } = Astro.props;
 ---
 <dl class="grid-autofit defs" style={`--grid-min: ${minColumn}`}>
  {
    items.map((item) => (
      <div class="def">
        <dt class="def-name">{item.name}</dt>
        <dd class="def-body">{item.body}</dd>
      </div>
    ))
  }
 </dl>
 <style>
  /* Columns and the `min()` guard come from `.grid-autofit` (global.css); this
     sets only the gap. It re-implemented them for one pass — a second copy of
     the guard, inside the extraction made to remove copies of the guard.
     `--grid-min` is passed inline by the caller because a parent cannot style
     this component's root, and a custom property is the one mechanism that
     crosses that boundary. */
  .defs {
    gap: var(--space-7);
  }
  .def-name {
    font-family: var(--font-mono);
    font-size: var(--text-xs);
    font-weight: var(--weight-medium);
    letter-spacing: var(--tracking-wide);
    text-transform: uppercase;
    color: var(--text-meta);
  }
  .def-body {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-2);
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
  }
 </style>
@@ -179,7 +179,21 @@ export function personNode(
 *
 * No `priceRange`, no `aggregateRating`, no `review` — the last two have no
 * underlying data and §4 Forbidden bars the fabricated testimonial that the
- * previous site carried.
+ * previous site carried. And no `availableLanguage`: it is not in this type's
 * domain either (see `serviceGraph`), and the `Person` beside it in the graph
 * carries `knowsLanguage`.
 *
 * ⚠️ **`serviceType` AND `provider` ARE STILL OUT OF DOMAIN ON THIS TYPE, AND
 * THAT IS UNRESOLVED.** Measured 2026-08-28 against `validator.schema.org`:
 * `/` returns `UNKNOWN_FIELD` for `serviceType`, `availableLanguage` and
 * `provider` on `ProfessionalService`, which is a `LocalBusiness` and takes
 * none of the three. `availableLanguage` is removed above because nothing is
 * lost. The other two carry real information — the commercial scoping and the
 * link to the Person — so removing them costs more than the warning does, and
 * the modelled fix is a `Service` node with the business as `provider`, which
 * is a change to the home page's structured data rather than a tidy-up. **The
 * other four pages now validate with 0 warnings**; this node is the last one.
 * Raised for the step-7 SEO pass, not left as folklore.
 */
 export function professionalServiceNode(imageUrl?: string) {
  return {
@@ -202,7 +216,6 @@ export function professionalServiceNode(imageUrl?: string) {
      'Commercial arbitration',
      'Mediation-arbitration (med-arb)',
    ],
    availableLanguage: ['en', 'fa'],
    email: `mailto:${CONTACT.email}`,
    ...(imageUrl ? { image: imageUrl } : {}),
  };
@@ -250,3 +263,112 @@ export function aboutGraph(imageUrl?: string) {
    '@graph': [personNode(imageUrl, { memberships: true })],
  };
 }
 /**
 * `Service` for the three process pages — `/mediation/`, `/arbitration/`,
 * `/med-arb/` (build step 4). docs/04's structured-data table.
 *
 * THE PERSON NODE TRAVELS WITH IT, for the reason `homeGraph` gives: a `@graph`
 * makes `provider: {'@id': …}` resolve inside this document rather than relying
 * on a crawler fetching `/about/` and joining two. Same `@id` either way, so a
 * consumer that does fetch both merges rather than duplicates.
 *
 * NO `BreadcrumbList`. These are one hop from the root and show no visible
 * breadcrumb; docs/04 requires the markup to MATCH visible breadcrumbs, so
 * emitting one would assert navigation the page does not show. Breadcrumbs
 * begin at `/practice/<area>/` and `/insights/<slug>/`.
 *
 * NO `offers` AND NO `priceRange` until `/fees/` exists (build step 9) — same
 * gate docs/04 puts on `ProfessionalService`.
 *
 * NO `availableLanguage` EITHER, AND THAT IS NOT AN OVERSIGHT. schema.org's
 * `domainIncludes` for it is `ContactPoint`, `Course`, `LodgingBusiness`,
 * `ServiceChannel`, `TouristAttraction` — **not `Service`**. It shipped here for
 * one pass and `validator.schema.org` returned `UNKNOWN_FIELD` twice per page on
 * all three, against **0 warnings** on `/about/`. The `Person` in the same
 * `@graph` already carries `knowsLanguage: ['en','fa']`, so nothing is lost. The
 * modelled alternative is `availableChannel → ServiceChannel → availableLanguage`,
 * which is more machinery than the fact is worth.
 *
 * ⚠️ `serviceType` IS A UNION, NOT A STRING, AND THAT IS THE POINT. An
 * unscoped `"Arbitration"` is Q39's struck universal — false as a universal,
 * swept four times, reached a public page once — so it is not a value this
 * function will accept. A comment asking a caller not to pass it is a warning; a
 * union is a build error. Widening the union requires a §4 Offerings row, and
 * the row is the only thing that should ever widen it.
 */
 /** `docs/04`'s ratified `serviceType` strings — **not** §4's row labels, which
 *  read "Arbitration — sole arbitrator (commercial)" and "Med-Arb —
 *  mediation-arbitration". Adding a member needs a §4 Offerings row, but do not
 *  copy the row's wording: doing that "verbatim" yields the unscoped
 *  `Arbitration` this union exists to bar. */
 export type PublishableServiceType =
  'Mediation' | 'Commercial arbitration' | 'Mediation-arbitration (med-arb)';
 export function serviceGraph(opts: {
  path: string;
  name: string;
  serviceType: PublishableServiceType;
  description: string;
  imageUrl?: string;
 }) {
  return {
    '@context': 'https://schema.org',
    '@graph': [
      {
        '@type': 'Service',
        '@id': `${SITE.url}${opts.path}#service`,
        name: opts.name,
        serviceType: opts.serviceType,
        description: opts.description,
        url: `${SITE.url}${opts.path}`,
        provider: { '@id': PERSON_ID },
        areaServed: [
          { '@type': 'City', name: 'Toronto' },
          { '@type': 'AdministrativeArea', name: 'Ontario' },
        ],
      },
      personNode(opts.imageUrl),
    ],
  };
 }
 /**
 * `/med-arb/`'s graph — the Service, the Person, and a `FAQPage`.
 *
 * docs/04 lists `FAQPage` for this page and for `/for-parties/`, with the
 * condition that matters: *"Only where the visible page genuinely is Q&A. Never
 * fabricate questions to farm a rich result."* So the node is BUILT FROM THE
 * SAME ARRAY THE PAGE RENDERS — a question cannot enter the structured data
 * without appearing on the page, and the two cannot drift.
 */
 export function medArbGraph(opts: {
  faq: ReadonlyArray<{ q: string; a: string }>;
  imageUrl?: string;
 }) {
  const base = serviceGraph({
    path: '/med-arb/',
    name: 'Med-arb (mediation-arbitration)',
    serviceType: 'Mediation-arbitration (med-arb)',
    description:
      'Mediation that converts to binding arbitration if the mediation does ' +
      'not resolve the dispute. One neutral, both phases, agreed in writing ' +
      'in advance. Commercial matters.',
    imageUrl: opts.imageUrl,
  });
  return {
    ...base,
    '@graph': [
      ...base['@graph'],
      {
        '@type': 'FAQPage',
        '@id': `${SITE.url}/med-arb/#faq`,
        mainEntity: opts.faq.map((item) => ({
          '@type': 'Question',
          name: item.q,
          acceptedAnswer: { '@type': 'Answer', text: item.a },
        })),
      },
    ],
  };
 }
@@ -50,18 +50,20 @@ export const CREDENTIALS = {
  designations: ['Q.Med (ADRIC / ADRIO)'],
  inProgress: ['Q.Arb — commenced August 2026'], // [verified 2026-08-26]
  /**
-   * "Chartered Med-Arbitrator" — ADRIO's own term
+   * "Chartered Med-Arbitrator" — ADRIO's own term, and ADRIC's navigation label
-   * (docs/reference/adrio-designations.md). This read "Chartered
+   * too (docs/reference/adrio-designations.md; docs/reference/adric-rules.md
-   * Mediator-Arbitrator" until 2026-08-28, which was wrong; Pouya caught it and
+   * Finding 3, which corroborates it from a second body). Never
-   * it was his own error, carried from the strategy brief and never sourced.
+   * "Mediator-Arbitrator".
   *
-   * UNCONSUMED AS OF 2026-08-28 — nothing imports `CREDENTIALS.goal`. `/about/`'s
+   * `GOAL_NAME` IS THE STRING TO RENDER. This designation's name was wrong on a
-   * credential arc hand-types all three designations instead, which is the drift
+   * public page for the life of the file, and the reason it survived four review
-   * shape this repo keeps paying for (see ContactBand's 52ch/46ch divergence).
+   * passes is that it existed in several hand-typed copies rather than one
-   * It is corrected rather than deleted because `/med-arb/` at build step 4 is
+   * constant. `/arbitration/` and `/med-arb/` (step 4) render `GOAL_NAME`;
-   * its natural consumer: either that page uses it, or this line comes out.
+   * `/about/`'s arc still hand-types it, which is the remaining copy.
   */
  goal: 'C.Med-Arb (Chartered Med-Arbitrator)',
  /** Just the expansion, for prose. §11 Glossary is the authority for it. */
  goalName: 'Chartered Med-Arbitrator',
  education: ['JD, Bond University'],
  certifications: [
    'Kompass Arbitration Certificate Program',
@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
 ---
 /**
 * `/arbitration/` — build step 4. Spec: docs/01 §`/arbitration/`, docs/03.
 *
 * ⚠️ THIS PAGE CARRIES §4's PAIRED-DISCLOSURE CONDITION, AND IT IS A CONDITION
 * ON THE OFFERING ITSELF, NOT A DISCLAIMER BOLTED TO IT. Both halves ship or
 * neither does:
 *
 *   1. All three forms are offered NOW — sole, party-appointed, co-arbitration
 *      — in commercial matters. §4 Offerings rows all three.
 *   2. The Q.Arb PATHWAY commenced August 2026, with C.Med-Arb as the endpoint.
 *
 * "Pathway", never "designation": a designation that "commenced in August 2026"
 * reads as held since then, which §4 Forbidden bars. Pouya's instruction is that
 * being open about the stage is the differentiator — so it is stated plainly and
 * high on the page, not hedged and not buried.
 *
 * ⚠️ AND NOTHING HERE MAY SAY OR IMPLY THAT ARBITRATION IS UNGATED IN ONTARIO.
 * Q39's struck universal — "anyone may be appointed an arbitrator in Ontario;
 * nothing in law gates the role behind a designation" — was FALSE as a
 * universal, has been swept four times, and reached a public page once. The
 * page states what is offered and where the credentialing stands. It makes no
 * claim about what the law requires of anyone.
 */
 import BaseLayout from '../layouts/BaseLayout.astro';
 import Button from '../components/Button.astro';
 import ContactBand from '../components/ContactBand.astro';
 import DefinitionGrid from '../components/DefinitionGrid.astro';
 import CredentialRow from '../components/CredentialRow.astro';
 import Eyebrow from '../components/Eyebrow.astro';
 import Pill from '../components/Pill.astro';
 import SectionHeading from '../components/SectionHeading.astro';
 import { getImage } from 'astro:assets';
 import ogDefault from '../assets/og-portrait.jpg';
 import { serviceGraph } from '../data/schema';
 import { CREDENTIALS, CREDENTIAL_ROW, CREDENTIAL_ROW_ARB } from '../data/site';
 const ldImage = await getImage({
  src: ogDefault,
  format: 'jpeg',
  width: 1200,
  height: 630,
 });
 const graph = serviceGraph({
  path: '/arbitration/',
  name: 'Commercial arbitration',
  serviceType: 'Commercial arbitration',
  description:
    'Sole-arbitrator, party-appointed and co-arbitration appointments in ' +
    'commercial matters. Documents-only, expedited and full hearing tracks.',
  imageUrl: new URL(ldImage.src, Astro.site).href,
 });
 /* §4 Offerings rows all three, each `[verified 2026-08-26 — Pouya, Q33/Q36]`,
   each scoped commercial. Do not add a fourth without a row. */
 const APPOINTMENTS = [
  {
    name: 'Sole arbitrator',
    body: 'One arbitrator, appointed by agreement or by the mechanism the contract names.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Party-appointed',
    body: 'Appointed by one side to a three-member tribunal, deciding with the other two.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Co-arbitration',
    body: 'Sitting with co-arbitrators, usually where the matter spans more than one discipline.',
  },
 ];
 /* Tracks are docs/01 §`/arbitration/` item 2. The flat fees behind the first
   two are D14's card and live on `/fees/`; no figure appears here. */
 const TRACKS = [
  {
    name: 'Documents only',
    body: 'No hearing. Written submissions, the documentary record, and an award. The right track where the dispute is about what the contract says rather than about what happened.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Expedited',
    body: 'A compressed timetable fixed at the outset, with page limits and a short hearing. Chosen when the commercial cost of the dispute staying open exceeds the value of a full process.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Full hearing',
    body: 'Pleadings, disclosure, witnesses, experts, oral argument. Where the facts are genuinely contested and someone has to hear them tested.',
  },
 ];
 ---
 <BaseLayout
  title="Commercial Arbitration · Pouya Lajevardi · Toronto"
  description="Sole, party-appointed and co-arbitration appointments in commercial matters, Toronto. Tracks, rules and awards — and where the Q.Arb pathway stands."
  jsonLd={graph}
 >
  {/* ---- 1. Hero — and the paired disclosure starts here ---------------- */}
  <section class="section hero">
    <div class="wrap">
      <Eyebrow dot>Arbitration</Eyebrow>
      <h1 class="display hero-h">Available now, and open about the stage.</h1>
      <p class="hero-lede">
        I accept sole, party-appointed and co-arbitration appointments in
        commercial matters. The Q.Arb pathway commenced in August 2026;
        C.Med-Arb is the endpoint. Both are true at once, and they belong
        together rather than one of them surfacing later.
      </p>
      <div class="hero-creds">
        <CredentialRow slots={[...CREDENTIAL_ROW, CREDENTIAL_ROW_ARB]} />
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 2. The credentialing stage, on its own ------------------------- */}
  {
    /* §4 Offerings: "neither half may be dropped". The offering is in the hero;
      this is the other half, given its own section rather than a footnote,
      because Pouya's instruction is that the openness IS the differentiator. */
  }
  <section class="section section-inverse reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Where I am in the arc" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading"
            >Stated plainly rather than discovered later.</span
          >
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <ol class="grid-autofit stage" role="list">
        <li>
          <Pill>Held</Pill>
          <h3 class="stage-name">Q.Med</h3>
          <p class="stage-body">
            Qualified Mediator, through the ADR Institute of Canada and the ADR
            Institute of Ontario.
          </p>
        </li>
        <li>
          <Pill>Commenced August 2026</Pill>
          <h3 class="stage-name">Q.Arb</h3>
          <p class="stage-body">
            Qualified Arbitrator. Newly commenced — not held, and not nearing
            completion.
          </p>
        </li>
        <li>
          <Pill>The endpoint</Pill>
          <h3 class="stage-name">C.Med-Arb</h3>
          <p class="stage-body">
            {CREDENTIALS.goalName}. The designation this practice is built
            toward.
          </p>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <p class="stage-note">
        If the stage of the arc bears on an appointment decision, it should bear
        on it before the appointment and not after.
      </p>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 3. Appointments ------------------------------------------------ */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading
          eyebrow="Appointments"
          level={2}
          lede="Commercial matters. I do not accept family arbitration."
        >
          <span slot="heading">Three forms.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <DefinitionGrid items={APPOINTMENTS} />
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 4. Tracks ------------------------------------------------------ */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading
          eyebrow="Tracks"
          level={2}
          lede="Settled with the parties before the first procedural order, not defaulted to."
        >
          <span slot="heading">How much process the dispute needs.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <DefinitionGrid items={TRACKS} />
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 5. Rules ------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Rules" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">Under whose rules.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        {
          /* Sourced: docs/reference/adric-rules.md. ADR CHAMBERS IS DELIBERATELY
            NOT NAMED — docs/01 item 3 lists it, and nothing in this repository
            sources what rules it publishes. docs/07 cites it for published FEE
            ranges, which is a different claim. Name it here once it is sourced;
            do not name it from recall (R14). */
        }
        <p>
          <strong>The ADRIC Arbitration Rules.</strong> The ADR Institute of Canada
          adopted a new edition effective 1 March 2025, alongside an arbitrator appointment
          protocol and a set of forms — notice to arbitrate, request to administer,
          request for the appointment of an arbitrator, urgent interim measures, challenge
          to an arbitrator, notice of appeal.
        </p>
        <p>
          <strong>Or ad hoc, or whatever the contract names.</strong> Where a contract
          names a rule set, a seat and a language and leaves the rest to the tribunal,
          that works. What does not is a process whose shape nobody agreed to in advance.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 6. Awards ------------------------------------------------------ */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Awards" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">In writing, with reasons.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          An award should be in writing and give reasons — what was in dispute,
          what the record showed, and why the conclusion follows. An award that
          announces a result without the reasoning is not much use to the party
          that lost, and it is no use at all to the relationship that has to
          survive it.
        </p>
        {
          /* THE DATE IS A COMMITMENT ABOUT PROCESS, NOT A PUBLISHED TURNAROUND.
            §4 Forbidden bars a time-to-award statistic outright; no figure
            appears here and none may be added. */
        }
        <p>
          The date an award is due belongs in the first procedural order, along
          with everything else, rather than being left open. No number is
          published here: a turnaround time advertised in advance of a record is
          a guess dressed as a commitment.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 7. Fees --------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Fees" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">Published in full.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          Hourly, hearing day, and flat fees for documents-only and expedited
          matters at two levels of complexity. The cancellation schedule is on
          the same page.
        </p>
      </div>
      <div class="cta">
        <Button href="/fees/" variant="ghost">The rate card &rarr;</Button>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  <ContactBand />
 </BaseLayout>
 <style>
  .hero {
    padding-block-start: var(--space-9);
  }
  .hero-h {
    margin-block: var(--space-4) var(--space-5);
    font-size: var(--text-5xl);
    max-inline-size: 20ch;
  }
  .hero-lede {
    max-inline-size: 58ch;
    font-size: var(--text-lg);
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
    color: var(--text-secondary);
  }
  .hero-creds {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-8);
  }
  /* `.stage`, NOT `.arc`. `/about/` has an `.arc` block of its own with the
     same class names and different rendering — serif at --text-2xl there, mono
     at --text-lg here — and Astro's scoping means neither reaches the other. Two
     meanings for one name across two pages is a rename waiting to go wrong.
     `role="list"` on the <ol> and no local `list-style: none`: global.css does
     both for `ol[role='list']`, and WebKit drops list semantics when the marker
     goes, which is why the role is there. Columns come from `.grid-autofit`. */
  .stage {
    --grid-min: 17rem;
    gap: var(--space-7);
  }
  .stage-name {
    margin-block: var(--space-4) var(--space-2);
    font-family: var(--font-mono);
    font-size: var(--text-lg);
    font-weight: var(--weight-medium);
  }
  .stage-body {
    max-inline-size: 40ch;
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
  }
  .stage-note {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-8);
    max-inline-size: 54ch;
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
    color: var(--text-inverse-2);
  }
  .cta {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-6);
  }
 </style>
@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
 ---
 /**
 * `/med-arb/` — build step 4. Spec: docs/01 §`/med-arb/`, docs/03 §Mediation /
 * Arbitration / Med-Arb, docs/04 (FAQPage is specified for this page).
 *
 * docs/01 rates this the strongest candidate for the best-performing page on
 * the site: real search demand, thin competition, and it maps to the practice's
 * long-term arc. So it is written to be the page that actually explains the
 * process, not a service blurb.
 *
 * THE FAIRNESS SECTION IS WRITTEN ABOUT THE PROCESS, NOT ABOUT POUYA, AND THAT
 * IS DELIBERATE. docs/03 requires the procedural-fairness objection met head-on
 * and the consent mechanics explained. What a med-arb AGREEMENT has to settle is
 * process design and needs no §4 row. What POUYA will personally commit to —
 * how he handles caucus information he cannot un-hear, and whether he would step
 * out of the arbitral phase rather than decide on it — is a claim about his
 * practice, has no §4 row, and is not invented here.
 *   TODO(pouya): AGENTS.md Q54 — confirm the six conduct commitments drafted
 *   there, or replace them. Three are this page's; two shipped here and on
 *   `/mediation/` for one pass before `claims-auditor` removed them.
 */
 import BaseLayout from '../layouts/BaseLayout.astro';
 import ContactBand from '../components/ContactBand.astro';
 import Eyebrow from '../components/Eyebrow.astro';
 import SectionHeading from '../components/SectionHeading.astro';
 import { getImage } from 'astro:assets';
 import ogDefault from '../assets/og-portrait.jpg';
 import { medArbGraph } from '../data/schema';
 import { CREDENTIALS } from '../data/site';
 const ldImage = await getImage({
  src: ogDefault,
  format: 'jpeg',
  width: 1200,
  height: 630,
 });
 /* ONE SOURCE FOR THE Q&A, rendered visibly AND fed to the FAQPage node. docs/04
   allows FAQPage here "only where the visible page genuinely is Q&A" — so the
   node is built from the same array the section renders, and a question cannot
   be added to the structured data without appearing on the page. */
 const FAQ = [
  {
    q: 'The neutral who heard my client in caucus then decides the case. How is that fair?',
    a: 'That is the objection, and it is the right one. A mediator learns things a decision-maker is not supposed to know — what a party would really take, what they are afraid of, what their own counsel thinks of their case. In med-arb the same person may go on to decide it. The answer is not that the concern is overstated. It is that med-arb is only defensible where the parties agree to it knowingly and in advance, in writing, with the switch and its consequences settled before the mediation phase begins — never improvised on the day because the room has run out of road.',
  },
  {
    q: 'What happens to what we say in caucus?',
    a: 'That is the question the agreement has to answer before anyone says anything. A med-arb agreement should settle three things in terms: what triggers the move from mediation to arbitration; what a party may say in caucus without it entering the arbitral record; and how a party flags, at the time, that something is being said for the mediation only. Vagueness on any of the three is what turns a procedural objection into a real one.',
  },
  {
    q: 'When is med-arb the wrong process?',
    a: 'When the parties are not equally informed or equally advised, because the caucus asymmetry compounds. When one side needs a finding on the record more than it needs a settlement. When the relationship is already so damaged that a joint session is unproductive and shuttle mediation would be the better tool on its own. And whenever a party agrees to it reluctantly: grudging consent at the outset is not the foundation a process like this one runs on.',
  },
 ];
 const graph = medArbGraph({
  faq: FAQ,
  imageUrl: new URL(ldImage.src, Astro.site).href,
 });
 ---
 <BaseLayout
  title="Med-Arb · Pouya Lajevardi · What It Is and When It Fits"
  description="Med-arb is mediation that converts to arbitration if it does not resolve. What it is, how it differs from arb-med, the fairness objection, and when it fits."
  jsonLd={graph}
 >
  {/* ---- 1. Hero -------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section hero">
    <div class="wrap">
      <Eyebrow dot>Med-Arb</Eyebrow>
      <h1 class="display hero-h">
        One neutral. Two processes. One agreement, written first.
      </h1>
      <p class="hero-lede">
        Med-arb is mediation that converts to binding arbitration if the
        mediation does not resolve the dispute. The parties get a real attempt
        at settlement and a decision if one does not come, from a single
        appointment — and they take on one real objection to get it. This page
        is mostly about that objection.
      </p>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 2. What it is, and how it is not arb-med ----------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="The shape" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading"
            >Mediation first. Arbitration only if it is needed.</span
          >
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          The parties appoint one neutral for both phases. The matter is
          mediated. Whatever settles, settles, and is recorded. Whatever does
          not settle moves to arbitration in front of the same neutral, on the
          terms the parties agreed before any of it began, and ends in an award.
        </p>
        <p>
          The commercial case for it is time and cost. Without it, a mediation
          that does not settle means starting again: a new neutral, a second
          round of briefs, another set of dates months out. Med-arb removes that
          gap, and whatever narrowing the mediation achieved carries into the
          arbitration instead of being re-litigated.
        </p>
        {
          /* ARB-MED IS NAMED AS A DIFFERENT PROCESS AND DELIBERATELY NOT DEFINED.
            docs/01 asks for the contrast; nothing in `docs/reference/` sources a
            definition of arb-med, and this repository does not publish a
            definition of a third party's process from recall (R14). Flagging the
            confusion is the useful half and it needs no source. Define it here
            once a source is committed. */
        }
        <p>
          <strong>It is not arb-med.</strong> The two names are one syllable apart
          and the processes are not interchangeable. If a contract names one of them,
          check which one before relying on it — against the rule set the contract
          adopts, not against this page.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 3. The objection ----------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-inverse reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading
          eyebrow="The objection"
          level={2}
          lede="Met here rather than further down, because it is the reason to read the page."
        >
          <span slot="heading">The fairness problem is real.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="faq">
        {
          FAQ.map((item) => (
            <div class="faq-item">
              <h3 class="faq-q">{item.q}</h3>
              <p class="faq-a">{item.a}</p>
            </div>
          ))
        }
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 4. Rules ------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Rules" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">There is a published rule set for this.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        {
          /* Sourced: docs/reference/adric-rules.md. Both quotations are ADRIC's
            own words. "integrating seamlessly" stays inside the quotation marks —
            §4 Forbidden bars superlatives in this site's own voice. */
        }
        <p>
          The ADR Institute of Canada publishes <strong
            >ADRIC Med-Arb Rules</strong
          >, developed by a task force and put to the membership in 2019, and
          designed, in ADRIC's words, to <q
            >work in tandem with ADRIC's existing Mediation Rules and
            Arbitration Rules</q
          >. They were drafted for domestic commercial disputes, and ADRIC notes
          that parties may also apply them to international or non-commercial
          ones.
        </p>
        <p>
          ADRIC's own framing is worth quoting: med-arb is
          <q
            >not merely the merging of separate mediation and arbitration
            processes, but a unique process designed to meet the needs of
            particular disputants</q
          >, one that <q
            >requires a high level of practitioner competence to do successfully</q
          >.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 5. The endpoint ------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Why this practice" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading"
            >C.Med-Arb is the designation this practice is built toward.</span
          >
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          {CREDENTIALS.goalName}, the ADRIC and ADRIO designation for exactly
          this hybrid, is the endpoint of the arc. Q.Med is held. The Q.Arb
          pathway commenced in August 2026. C.Med-Arb comes after both, and it
          is the reason the two halves of this practice are being built together
          rather than one after the other.
        </p>
        <p>
          I accept med-arb appointments now, in commercial matters. The section
          above is the part to read before proposing one: the agreement does the
          work, and it does it before the mediation starts.
        </p>
        <p class="onward">
          <a href="/mediation/">Mediation &rarr;</a>
          <a href="/arbitration/">Arbitration &rarr;</a>
          <a href="/fees/">Fees &rarr;</a>
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  <ContactBand />
 </BaseLayout>
 <style>
  .hero {
    padding-block-start: var(--space-9);
  }
  .hero-h {
    margin-block: var(--space-4) var(--space-5);
    font-size: var(--text-5xl);
    max-inline-size: 18ch;
  }
  .hero-lede {
    max-inline-size: 58ch;
    font-size: var(--text-lg);
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
    color: var(--text-secondary);
  }
  .faq {
    display: grid;
    gap: var(--space-8);
  }
  .faq-q {
    max-inline-size: 46ch;
    font-size: var(--text-2xl);
    line-height: var(--leading-tight);
  }
  .faq-a {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-4);
    max-inline-size: var(--width-prose);
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
    color: var(--text-inverse-2);
  }
  /* A ROW OF STANDALONE CTAs, NOT PROSE, so WCAG 2.5.8's inline-link exception
     does not cover it. Measured at 390px before the fix: three targets at
     21px tall, against the 44px floor docs/02 sets and the 24px minimum 2.5.8
     sets. `inline-flex` + `min-block-size` is what `.btn`, the nav and the
     footer all use. The middot separators went with the fix — spacing does the
     same job without an aria-hidden glyph between two links. */
  .onward {
    display: flex;
    flex-wrap: wrap;
    gap: var(--space-2) var(--space-6);
  }
  .onward a {
    display: inline-flex;
    align-items: center;
    min-block-size: 44px;
  }
 </style>
@@ -0,0 +1,311 @@
 ---
 /**
 * `/mediation/` — build step 4. Spec: docs/01 §`/mediation/`, docs/03 §Mediation.
 *
 * Job (docs/01): convert counsel who have already decided on mediation and are
 * choosing a neutral. So: procedural, specific, unembellished. No persuasion
 * that the reader has already done for themselves.
 */
 import BaseLayout from '../layouts/BaseLayout.astro';
 import Button from '../components/Button.astro';
 import ContactBand from '../components/ContactBand.astro';
 import DefinitionGrid from '../components/DefinitionGrid.astro';
 import CredentialRow from '../components/CredentialRow.astro';
 import Eyebrow from '../components/Eyebrow.astro';
 import PracticeCard from '../components/PracticeCard.astro';
 import SectionHeading from '../components/SectionHeading.astro';
 import { getImage } from 'astro:assets';
 import ogDefault from '../assets/og-portrait.jpg';
 import { serviceGraph } from '../data/schema';
 import { CREDENTIAL_ROW, PRACTICE_AREAS } from '../data/site';
 const ldImage = await getImage({
  src: ogDefault,
  format: 'jpeg',
  width: 1200,
  height: 630,
 });
 const graph = serviceGraph({
  path: '/mediation/',
  name: 'Commercial mediation',
  serviceType: 'Mediation',
  description:
    'Sole-mediator appointments in commercial disputes. Half day or full ' +
    'day, in person, by video, or shuttle.',
  imageUrl: new URL(ldImage.src, Astro.site).href,
 });
 /* Formats are SERVICE PARAMETERS, not offerings — AGENTS.md Q43 put process
   commitments of this class ("not facts about Pouya") on the publishable side.
   The half day / full day / video / in-person set is D14's card; shuttle and
   hybrid are docs/01 §`/mediation/` item 2. */
 const FORMATS = [
  {
    name: 'Full day',
    body: 'The default for a matter with more than two parties, or where the documents need working through in the room.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Half day',
    body: 'Enough for a two-party matter where the issues are narrow and both sides arrive ready.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Shuttle',
    body: 'The parties never sit in the same room. Useful where the relationship has broken down far enough that a joint session would cost more than it returns.',
  },
  {
    name: 'By video',
    body: 'Same preparation, same length, same rate. Remote is not a discount format.',
  },
  {
    name: 'Hybrid',
    body: 'Principals in the room, an expert or an insurer joining remotely for the part that concerns them.',
  },
 ];
 ---
 <BaseLayout
  title="Commercial Mediation · Pouya Lajevardi · Q.Med · Toronto"
  description="Sole mediator for commercial disputes in Toronto. Q.Med through ADRIC and ADRIO. Session formats, the ADRIC National Mediation Rules, and what to bring."
  jsonLd={graph}
 >
  {/* ---- 1. Hero -------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section hero">
    <div class="wrap">
      <Eyebrow dot>Mediation</Eyebrow>
      <h1 class="display hero-h">A mediator decides nothing.</h1>
      <p class="hero-lede">
        That is the point of the role, and it is what makes the day work. I run
        the process, test each side's case against the documents, and keep it
        moving until there is an agreement or there plainly will not be one.
      </p>
      <div class="hero-creds">
        <CredentialRow slots={CREDENTIAL_ROW} />
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 2. The role ---------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="The role" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">What I am, and what I am not.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          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.
        </p>
        <p>
          What I bring to a commercial file is that I read the contract and the
          technical record underneath it — the change orders, the schedule, the
          model card, the interconnection study — rather than either side's
          summary of them.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 3. Formats ----------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading
          eyebrow="Formats"
          level={2}
          lede="Chosen with the parties at engagement, not assumed."
        >
          <span slot="heading">How the session runs.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <DefinitionGrid items={FORMATS} minColumn="22rem" />
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 4. Rules ------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-inverse reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Rules" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">Under whose rules.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        {
          /* "ADRIC National Mediation Rules" — the document's own title, from
            docs/reference/adric-rules.md. docs/01 said "Model Mediation Rules",
            which is not the name of anything ADRIC publishes; "Model" belongs to
            the Model Dispute Resolution Clause inside the rules. Finding 1. */
        }
        <p>
          <strong>The ADRIC National Mediation Rules.</strong> The ADR Institute of
          Canada publishes them. They cover initiating a mediation and appointing
          a mediator where the parties cannot agree on one, and the document carries
          a code of conduct, a standard form agreement to mediate, and a model dispute
          resolution clause for contracts. If the agreement already names them, the
          process is defined before anyone calls me.
        </p>
        <p>
          <strong>Or a protocol the parties write.</strong> Where the contract is
          silent, or where the matter needs something a standard rule set does not
          contemplate, the protocol is settled in writing before the session.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 5. What to bring ----------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Preparation" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">What to bring.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <ul class="bring" role="list">
        <li>
          <strong>A brief.</strong> The issues, the position taken on each, and what
          has already been offered and refused. Exchanged in advance, so the session
          starts informed rather than spending the morning getting there.
        </li>
        <li>
          <strong>The documents the case turns on</strong> — not the production. If
          a clause, a change order, or a test result decides an issue, put it in front
          of me before the day.
        </li>
        <li>
          <strong>Authority to settle.</strong> In the room, or reachable in real
          time and expecting the call. A mediation that reaches terms and then adjourns
          for instructions is a mediation at risk.
        </li>
      </ul>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 6. Confidentiality --------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Confidentiality" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">What stays in the room.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          Confidentiality is set by the agreement to mediate, and that is signed
          before the session rather than described on a website. The part worth
          settling in it explicitly is the caucus: what a mediator may carry
          from one room to the other, and what a party has to say to hold
          something back. An agreement that leaves that implicit is the one that
          produces an argument on the day.
        </p>
        {
          /* The without-prejudice question is answered by pointing, not by
            characterising legal effect. AGENTS.md §4 bars this repository from
            concluding a proposition of law, and docs/03's `[unestablished]`
            pattern says to write around the capacity question. */
        }
        <p>
          Mediation is conducted on a without-prejudice basis. What that means
          for a particular file, and what survives it, is a question for each
          party's own counsel rather than for the neutral.
        </p>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 7. Practice areas ---------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading
          eyebrow="Subject matter"
          level={2}
          lede="Where a commercial mediation usually turns on something technical."
        >
          <span slot="heading">Six areas.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="grid-autofit areas-grid">
        {
          PRACTICE_AREAS.map((area) => (
            <PracticeCard
              href={`/practice/${area.slug}/`}
              chip={area.chip}
              title={area.name}
              level={3}
            >
              {area.blurb}
            </PracticeCard>
          ))
        }
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  {/* ---- 8. Fees --------------------------------------------------------- */}
  <section class="section section-alt reveal">
    <div class="wrap">
      <div class="section-head">
        <SectionHeading eyebrow="Fees" level={2}>
          <span slot="heading">Published in full.</span>
        </SectionHeading>
      </div>
      <div class="prose">
        <p>
          Half day and full day, with the preparation time bundled into each one
          stated rather than folded into the hours. Additional parties, overtime
          and the cancellation schedule are on the same page.
        </p>
      </div>
      <div class="cta">
        <Button href="/fees/" variant="ghost">The rate card &rarr;</Button>
      </div>
    </div>
  </section>
  <ContactBand />
 </BaseLayout>
 <style>
  .hero {
    padding-block-start: var(--space-9);
  }
  .hero-h {
    margin-block: var(--space-4) var(--space-5);
    font-size: var(--text-6xl);
  }
  .hero-lede {
    max-inline-size: 58ch;
    font-size: var(--text-lg);
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
    color: var(--text-secondary);
  }
  .hero-creds {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-8);
  }
  .cta {
    margin-block-start: var(--space-6);
  }
  .bring {
    /* No `list-style: none` or `padding: 0` here — `global.css` applies both to
       `ul[role='list']`, and a second copy is a second thing to keep true. */
    display: grid;
    gap: var(--space-5);
    max-inline-size: var(--width-prose);
  }
  .bring li {
    padding-inline-start: var(--space-5);
    border-inline-start: 1px solid var(--rule);
    line-height: var(--leading-body);
  }
  /* `.grid-autofit` (global.css) carries the columns and the `min()` guard;
     this only sets the gap. One home for that reasoning, not five. */
  .areas-grid {
    gap: var(--space-5);
  }
 </style>
@@ -321,6 +321,42 @@ a:hover {
 .section-head {
  margin-block-end: var(--space-7);
 }
 /* THE AUTO-FIT GRID GUARD, IN ONE PLACE. `adversarial-reviewer` counted five
   copies of the same five-line comment across three pages at step 4 — 25 lines
   explaining 5 identical declarations — plus a sixth, differently worded copy on
   `/about/`. That is this repo's own "a second copy is a second thing to keep
   true", and D19's comment rule, both breached by a paragraph about a guard.
   THE GUARD: `min(Nrem, 100%)`, never a bare rem. A bare rem floor is a HARD
   minimum, so at a 200% default font size (root 32px — a real accessibility
   setting, not page zoom) an 18rem floor becomes 576px and the track refuses to
   shrink. Measured on `/`: 234px of document overflow at a 390px viewport, down
   to 3px once the three grids took `min()`. docs/02 §Accessibility floor carries
   the full table.
   Set `--grid-min` on the element; default 18rem.
   ⚠️ NOT YET THE ONLY HOME, and the remaining copies are listed rather than
   claimed swept. `git grep -n 'auto-fit' -- src`, 2026-08-28:
     src/pages/index.astro:875   minmax(min(18rem, 100%), 1fr)
     src/pages/index.astro:916   minmax(min(13rem, 100%), 1fr)
     src/pages/about.astro:965   minmax(min(18rem, 100%), 1fr)
     src/pages/about.astro:1007  minmax(min(16rem, 100%), 1fr)
   Those four are on pages that already shipped; converting them after the
   review cap would be an unreviewed change to live CSS. They move onto this
   class at step 5, when `/practice/*` is in the same files. Until then a
   correction here reaches three call sites, not seven — say that rather than
   letting a reader believe the guard has one home. */
 .grid-autofit {
  display: grid;
  grid-template-columns: repeat(
    auto-fit,
    minmax(min(var(--grid-min, 18rem), 100%), 1fr)
  );
 }
 .section {
  padding-block: var(--section-y);
 }