feat: D19 bounds the review loop; apply nine rulings; close Q46(a) and Q48–Q53

D19 into §3 and swept to all six destinations Pouya named: both agent briefs
(scope + severity filter), /build Phases 2–4 (non-gating questions, scope, stop
signal, two-round cap), /wrap, and CLAUDE.md (comments record decisions, not
history). Sweep verified by command, not recalled.

Rulings applied:
  Q46(a) PUBLISHABLE — three §4 Offerings rows flipped; gate 1 records
         [Pouya's stated basis], never [verified]. Step 5 unblocked.
  Q48    closed, not site-relevant.
  Q49    one §4 row, "Mediator"; read as declining Q49(b), so worksFor stays out.
  Q50    DEVIATES — ships as name + slogan, not the concatenation. Flagged.
  Q51    OBA sections stay; the regulator/voluntary distinction recorded.
  Q52    docs/reference/deploy-credential-verification.md — 18 read-only AWS
         calls, re-run rather than transcribed, access key ID redacted.
  Q53    memberOf emitted on /about/'s Person node.

Two review rounds. The headline finding was this session's own: the Q53 sweep
was asserted and never run, leaving six in-scope records saying memberOf was
withheld — including §12 R10, which is read aloud every session. Round 2 then
found that round 1's simplification had put memberOf on / as well; the per-page
opt-in is restored, because Pouya's ruling turns on /about/'s visible HTML.

Also fixed: MEMBERSHIP_ORGS had orphaned BOUTIQUE's D16 JSDoc; /'s title now
derives from the constants; §7's deploy row stated and retracted three facts.

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

.claude/agents/adversarial-reviewer.md

@@ -27,6 +27,35 @@ A diff or a set of files, and the specs in `docs/`. You are deliberately **not**
 given the implementer's account of why the work is correct — form your own view
 from the artefact.
 
+## Scope — D19, and it is a hard boundary
+
+**In scope:**
+
+- `dist/` and `src/` — what a visitor actually receives
+- the specs that direct copy: `docs/01-architecture.md`,
+  `docs/03-content-spec.md`, `docs/04-seo-spec.md`, `docs/07-fees.md`
+- `AGENTS.md` **§3, §4, §7, §9, §12** — the operative sections
+
+**Out of scope:**
+
+- the `AGENTS.md` **Change Log**
+- the agent briefs in `.claude/agents/`, including this one
+- `AGENTS.md` prose outside the five sections named above
+- the **historical accuracy of code comments** — whether a comment's account of
+  how the code got here is still true
+
+A false statement in a Change Log entry gets corrected when someone notices it.
+It does not get a review pass, because **no visitor reads it.** Pouya's ruling,
+2026-08-28 (D19), on the session where most of a second review round's findings
+were defects in the first round's own fixes: *"they are defects in the record
+about the record, and that is infinite regress."*
+
+**What this does not narrow.** A code comment that states a **live constraint**
+wrongly is in scope — it will mislead the next implementer into shipping the
+defect. What is out of scope is the comment's account of its own revision
+history. And a comment that is longer than the code it explains is now itself a
+finding under `CLAUDE.md`'s D19 convention: report it as **simplicity**, lens 6.
+
 ## Lenses — work all of them
 
 **1. Correctness.** Does it do what `docs/01-architecture.md` and
@@ -84,5 +113,20 @@ For each finding:
   rather than dressing up a preference as a bug.
 - **The fix**, specifically
 
+### Severity filter — D19
+
+**Report blocking and should-fix. Raise a `consider` only if acting on it would
+change what ships.**
+
+The standing bias above says an approving review that misses a real defect is a
+failure. This is its twin, and Pouya added it 2026-08-28: **a review that reports
+twenty things in order to produce twenty small edits has spent more than it
+saved.** Both failures are real and they pull in opposite directions. The
+resolution is *not* to soften a genuine defect — it is to stop promoting
+preferences into findings.
+
+If you are uncertain whether something is a defect, the standing bias still
+applies: report it, at the severity your confidence supports.
+
 If you genuinely find nothing at a given severity, say which lenses you applied
 and what you checked, so the gap is auditable. **"Looks good" is not a review.**