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/commands/build.md

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ does not apply, say which and why before moving on.
    Reminders** and surface anything live to Pouya before you start.
 2. Read the specs in `docs/` that bear on this task.
 3. Restate the task in your own words, and name:
-   - which locked decisions (D1–D18) it touches
+   - which locked decisions (D1–D19) it touches
    - which specs govern it
    - which facts it needs from the §4 Verified register
 4. **Stop and ask if you find a conflict** — between the task and a locked
@@ -36,6 +36,13 @@ hex, no magic numbers. Semantic HTML. Every page gets its metadata.
 Where you need a fact you do not have: `TODO(pouya): <the exact question>` in the
 source **and** a new numbered question in `AGENTS.md` §9. Do not invent it.
 
+**But do not open a numbered question for something that gates nothing — D19.**
+The Q-series is past 50 and most recent additions gate nothing. If an observation
+does not block a page, a deploy or a claim, it is a **Change Log note**, not a
+numbered question — and retire the non-gating ones you find. A `TODO(pouya)` in
+source is not this case: it blocks the page it sits on, so it still gets a
+number.
+
 ## Phase 3 — Adversarial review (this is not optional)
 
 Invoke **both** review agents on the change, in parallel:
@@ -49,6 +56,22 @@ work is correct.** Your rationale anchors the reviewer and produces agreement
 instead of review. They form their own view from the artefact; that independence
 is the whole point of the phase.
 
+### Scope — D19
+
+Review is bounded. **In scope:** `dist/`, `src/`, the specs that direct copy
+(`docs/01`, `03`, `04`, `07`), and `AGENTS.md` §3, §4, §7, §9, §12. **Out of
+scope:** the Change Log, the agents' own briefs, `AGENTS.md` prose outside those
+sections, and the historical accuracy of code comments. Both briefs carry the
+same boundary — do not widen it in the prompt.
+
+### The stop signal
+
+**If a round's findings are predominantly about the record rather than the
+output, stop the round and say so.** That is the symptom of the loop feeding on
+itself, and noticing it is part of the job — not a licence to skip the phase.
+The shape to watch for, from the session that produced D19: a Change Log sweep
+that could not reproduce *because writing it changed the file it counted*.
+
 If the change touches no user-facing copy, `claims-auditor` may be skipped — say
 so explicitly.
 
@@ -69,6 +92,18 @@ under review pressure is exactly where the second defect lives.
 > launch articles. None of the four existed before the review started. Skip the
 > re-review and you ship the repair, not the bug.
 
+### Two rounds is the cap — D19
+
+Round 1 reviews the change. Round 2 reviews the material fixes. **There is no
+round 3: fix what round 2 finds, and ship.**
+
+The measurement above is why round 2 exists. The measurement below is why round 3
+does not. On 2026-08-28 two rounds produced **48 findings, and most of round
+two's were defects in round one's own fixes** — so each further round both finds
+and manufactures defects, and past two the manufacture rate exceeds the value of
+the marginal finding. Pouya's ruling. **State this reasoning when you stop at
+two**, so a later reader does not read the cap as laxness.
+
 ## Phase 5 — Verify — run it, do not assert it
 
 ```bash