adr-sml

21 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags

2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Pouya LajevardiandClaude Opus 5	6cfe69033f	feat: rule Q58 and close Q57; §4 lists all six areas; docs/03's checklist cites §4 instead of restating it Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s Details Four rulings from Pouya, plus what implementing them turned up. Q58 — RULED, and he attributed the ambiguity to his own document: "3.5 was meant as the TOTAL time committed, of which 2 is preparation — leaving 1.5 hours in the room. Your arithmetic caught it: if prep sat inside, 3.5 and 7 wouldn't be exactly 2x, because preparation doesn't scale with session length." The card now reads: half day up to 3 hours of session, fee includes up to 2 hours of preparation, $2,000; full day up to 6 hours, up to 3 hours of preparation, $4,000. docs/07's own research table corroborates 3 and 6 — Patey and Zuber both publish those hours, and ADR Chambers' roster rate counts preparation separately from "up to three hours of mediation". One provenance note under R14: he recalled "all or part of 3 hours" as their wording; the committed extract carries the hours but not the phrase, so docs/07 cites the hours and attributes the phrase to nobody. Two things fell out of the ruling that the instruction did not name, and both were defects. docs/07 §All parameters confirmed was itself prescribing the flat "including 2 hours of preparation" — the sentence /for-parties/ was built against, so the spec was generating the defect. And the cap had to reach the copy: "including up to 2 hours". FEES.mediation.*.hours is corrected 3.5 -> 3 and 7 -> 6; it had no consumer in src/ while the question was open, which is the only reason no page was ever wrong. /fees/ is unblocked for step 9 on the question Q58 asked. Q57 — CLOSED with no seventh undertaking. "A reader assumes the outcome, and the obvious undertaking adds nothing a reader doesn't already infer." The TODO(pouya) is replaced by the ruling where the question was; src/ now carries zero live TODO(pouya) markers. §4's mediation row lists all six published areas. Q56's ruling had named five, which was four areas plus the word "commercial" — a scope descriptor, not a seventh area. The hedge is struck on his instruction; the clause saying the six are not the authorised subject-matter list is restored, because his ruling supplied a correct value and did not close Q35(c)'s class. Split-stamped. docs/03's compliance checklist now names what to look for on a page and which §4 row decides it, never the bar's own wording. 12 items before, 12 after — a structural fix, not a coverage change. Thirteen review findings across two rounds, all applied, none declined. Three were mine to own. The capped-form rule was written and then applied to one surface: /mediation/ shipped an uncapped form in words no barred-string grep could reach, site.ts quoted a docs/07 sentence Q58 had just deleted, and §9's Q15/Q16/Q17 row prescribed the flat form — which is what a later implementer building /fees/ reads. A derived fee term was asserted as applied fact in the document that is the authority on money: "overtime begins after 3 h and 6 h" is in no ruling. Struck, and opened as Q59. And round 2 caught the arithmetic in round 1's own fix. The full-day route is flat $4,000 until hour 6, so generalising it as 500n+1000 for all n>=3 was valid only from 6 h, and "cheaper by $500 at every length" was wrong across the whole 3-6 h band. The real spread is $2,000 at three hours narrowing to $500 from six on — up to four times larger, and largest exactly where a half-day booking overruns. Written into docs/07 §Recorded dissent and §12's R5 row, which is where the 12-month fee review will read it. Round 1's fix for the missing consequence also published the overtime rate on a page that now states an unambiguous cap, defining the trigger by adjacency with no other quantity for it to attach to; the rate came off the page. R11 at the step 6 -> 7 boundary: 13 of 14 pins current. §7's TypeScript hold named one gate and there are two — typescript-eslint requires <6.1.0, tighter than @astrojs/check, so the recorded removal trigger was unreachable. Both are now named. Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0, build 0 (14 pages), check:claims 0, npm audit 0, minifier tripwire clean, zero JS shipped, all copy present with JavaScript disabled. Lighthouse not run — tool unavailable until step 7. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5	2026-08-31 08:17:59 -04:00
Pouya LajevardiandClaude Opus 5	13b97841b9	feat: build step 6 — /process/ and /for-parties/, the first step under D20 Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s Details Two pages, 14 in dist/ (was 12), zero JavaScript, one <h1> each, no skipped heading levels. Both were dangling links in SECONDARY_NAV since step 1; the footer is now whole on every page. /process/ — the five steps from intake to minutes of settlement or an award, with PROCESS_FRAMING rendered adjacent to the timings rather than in a section lede above them, which is the condition Q43 attached to publishing them at all. Conflicts says WHEN the check runs and WHAT it needs, and then stops: any sentence naming the outcome would be a seventh conduct undertaking, and §4's gate requires that Pouya has made it in terms. Logged as Q57. /for-parties/ — second person, grade 9, for a party arriving without counsel. NEUTRAL_ROLE_LINE gets its own section above the FAQ rather than a slot in it. Eight questions in one array feeding both the visible page and the FAQPage node, so a question cannot reach the structured data without appearing on the page. The word "lawyer" appears nowhere, deliberately, and the reason is in the file header. Three defects worth recording. The link colour on a dark band measured 1.88:1, and 1.10:1 on hover. `--link` is documented at 8.95:1 ON CREAM and was never overridden for an inverse ground; SiteFooter sets its own colour, which is the only reason this had not fired before — /process/ shipped the site's first body link on a dark band. That is worse than the gold-on-cream 2.10:1 this project treats as canonical. Fixed in global.css, where the next inverse-ground link will hit the same hole. The `:not(.btn)` guard is load-bearing, not tidiness: the new rule's specificity (0,2,1) beats `.btn-gold`'s (0,2,0), so without it the repair would have recoloured every gold button on a dark band. The fee shipped as "with preparation included", which docs/07 forbids in terms: the allowance is CAPPED, so the unqualified form sells an uncapped one, and /mediation/ already promises the site does the opposite. `prepIncluded` had been declared in site.ts with no consumer anywhere. /process/ §Confidentiality asserted that confidentiality is settled in the terms of appointment — a claim about Pouya's engagement documents that §4 does not row and no reader can check. Replaced with ADRIC's Code of Ethics quoted from the committed extract, plus the §4-verified membership rendered from MEMBERSHIP_ORGS. The replacement then said "on this it is one sentence", a completeness claim about a third party's Code that the extract cannot support — the same file records a separate instrument eighteen lines above. The cited source supplied its own counter-example. check:claims failed the build on compliant copy: five uses of "lawyer" about the READER, which §4 permits since it bars the word used OF Pouya. There is no allowlist, and the freeze bars narrowing the pattern, so the copy moved — the same call and the same direction as "my client" to "our client" on /med-arb/. Both replacements are better than what they replaced. Q58 opened rather than guessed: docs/07 reads "up to 3.5 h, INCLUDING 2 h preparation", which makes 3.5 the billed envelope and the room time 1.5 h, against which 3.5 and 7 being exactly 2x makes no sense. A draft had answered "What happens on the day?" with "about 3.5 hours" — the envelope presented as the day, to the reader least able to check it. The sentence was removed. Two review rounds, 16 findings, all applied. Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0, build 0 (14 pages), check:claims 0, npm audit 0, minifier tripwire clean. Lighthouse not run — tool unavailable until build step 7. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Md3GndFqWPzK78xAoebsg5	2026-08-31 07:33:58 -04:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Pouya LajevardiandClaude Opus 5

6cfe69033f

feat: rule Q58 and close Q57; §4 lists all six areas; docs/03's checklist cites §4 instead of restating it

Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s

Details

Four rulings from Pouya, plus what implementing them turned up.

Q58 — RULED, and he attributed the ambiguity to his own document: "3.5 was meant
as the TOTAL time committed, of which 2 is preparation — leaving 1.5 hours in the
room. Your arithmetic caught it: if prep sat inside, 3.5 and 7 wouldn't be
exactly 2x, because preparation doesn't scale with session length." The card now
reads: half day up to 3 hours of session, fee includes up to 2 hours of
preparation, $2,000; full day up to 6 hours, up to 3 hours of preparation,
$4,000. docs/07's own research table corroborates 3 and 6 — Patey and Zuber both
publish those hours, and ADR Chambers' roster rate counts preparation separately
from "up to three hours of mediation". One provenance note under R14: he recalled
"all or part of 3 hours" as their wording; the committed extract carries the
hours but not the phrase, so docs/07 cites the hours and attributes the phrase to
nobody.

Two things fell out of the ruling that the instruction did not name, and both
were defects. docs/07 §All parameters confirmed was itself prescribing the flat
"including 2 hours of preparation" — the sentence /for-parties/ was built
against, so the spec was generating the defect. And the cap had to reach the
copy: "including up to 2 hours". FEES.mediation.*.hours is corrected 3.5 -> 3 and
7 -> 6; it had no consumer in src/ while the question was open, which is the only
reason no page was ever wrong. /fees/ is unblocked for step 9 on the question Q58
asked.

Q57 — CLOSED with no seventh undertaking. "A reader assumes the outcome, and the
obvious undertaking adds nothing a reader doesn't already infer." The TODO(pouya)
is replaced by the ruling where the question was; src/ now carries zero live
TODO(pouya) markers.

§4's mediation row lists all six published areas. Q56's ruling had named five,
which was four areas plus the word "commercial" — a scope descriptor, not a
seventh area. The hedge is struck on his instruction; the clause saying the six
are not the authorised subject-matter list is restored, because his ruling
supplied a correct value and did not close Q35(c)'s class. Split-stamped.

docs/03's compliance checklist now names what to look for on a page and which §4
row decides it, never the bar's own wording. 12 items before, 12 after — a
structural fix, not a coverage change.

Thirteen review findings across two rounds, all applied, none declined. Three
were mine to own. The capped-form rule was written and then applied to one
surface: /mediation/ shipped an uncapped form in words no barred-string grep
could reach, site.ts quoted a docs/07 sentence Q58 had just deleted, and §9's
Q15/Q16/Q17 row prescribed the flat form — which is what a later implementer
building /fees/ reads. A derived fee term was asserted as applied fact in the
document that is the authority on money: "overtime begins after 3 h and 6 h" is
in no ruling. Struck, and opened as Q59.

And round 2 caught the arithmetic in round 1's own fix. The full-day route is
flat $4,000 until hour 6, so generalising it as 500n+1000 for all n>=3 was valid
only from 6 h, and "cheaper by $500 at every length" was wrong across the whole
3-6 h band. The real spread is $2,000 at three hours narrowing to $500 from six
on — up to four times larger, and largest exactly where a half-day booking
overruns. Written into docs/07 §Recorded dissent and §12's R5 row, which is where
the 12-month fee review will read it. Round 1's fix for the missing consequence
also published the overtime rate on a page that now states an unambiguous cap,
defining the trigger by adjacency with no other quantity for it to attach to; the
rate came off the page.

R11 at the step 6 -> 7 boundary: 13 of 14 pins current. §7's TypeScript hold
named one gate and there are two — typescript-eslint requires <6.1.0, tighter
than @astrojs/check, so the recorded removal trigger was unreachable. Both are
now named.

Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0, build 0 (14 pages), check:claims 0, npm audit
0, minifier tripwire clean, zero JS shipped, all copy present with JavaScript
disabled. Lighthouse not run — tool unavailable until step 7.

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

2026-08-31 08:17:59 -04:00

Pouya LajevardiandClaude Opus 5

13b97841b9

feat: build step 6 — /process/ and /for-parties/, the first step under D20

Build and deploy / build-and-deploy (push) Failing after 4s

Details

Two pages, 14 in dist/ (was 12), zero JavaScript, one <h1> each, no skipped
heading levels. Both were dangling links in SECONDARY_NAV since step 1; the
footer is now whole on every page.

/process/ — the five steps from intake to minutes of settlement or an award,
with PROCESS_FRAMING rendered adjacent to the timings rather than in a section
lede above them, which is the condition Q43 attached to publishing them at all.
Conflicts says WHEN the check runs and WHAT it needs, and then stops: any
sentence naming the outcome would be a seventh conduct undertaking, and §4's
gate requires that Pouya has made it in terms. Logged as Q57.

/for-parties/ — second person, grade 9, for a party arriving without counsel.
NEUTRAL_ROLE_LINE gets its own section above the FAQ rather than a slot in it.
Eight questions in one array feeding both the visible page and the FAQPage node,
so a question cannot reach the structured data without appearing on the page.
The word "lawyer" appears nowhere, deliberately, and the reason is in the file
header.

Three defects worth recording.

The link colour on a dark band measured 1.88:1, and 1.10:1 on hover. `--link`
is documented at 8.95:1 ON CREAM and was never overridden for an inverse
ground; SiteFooter sets its own colour, which is the only reason this had not
fired before — /process/ shipped the site's first body link on a dark band.
That is worse than the gold-on-cream 2.10:1 this project treats as canonical.
Fixed in global.css, where the next inverse-ground link will hit the same hole.
The `:not(.btn)` guard is load-bearing, not tidiness: the new rule's
specificity (0,2,1) beats `.btn-gold`'s (0,2,0), so without it the repair would
have recoloured every gold button on a dark band.

The fee shipped as "with preparation included", which docs/07 forbids in terms:
the allowance is CAPPED, so the unqualified form sells an uncapped one, and
/mediation/ already promises the site does the opposite. `prepIncluded` had
been declared in site.ts with no consumer anywhere.

/process/ §Confidentiality asserted that confidentiality is settled in the
terms of appointment — a claim about Pouya's engagement documents that §4 does
not row and no reader can check. Replaced with ADRIC's Code of Ethics quoted
from the committed extract, plus the §4-verified membership rendered from
MEMBERSHIP_ORGS. The replacement then said "on this it is one sentence", a
completeness claim about a third party's Code that the extract cannot support —
the same file records a separate instrument eighteen lines above. The cited
source supplied its own counter-example.

check:claims failed the build on compliant copy: five uses of "lawyer" about
the READER, which §4 permits since it bars the word used OF Pouya. There is no
allowlist, and the freeze bars narrowing the pattern, so the copy moved — the
same call and the same direction as "my client" to "our client" on /med-arb/.
Both replacements are better than what they replaced.

Q58 opened rather than guessed: docs/07 reads "up to 3.5 h, INCLUDING 2 h
preparation", which makes 3.5 the billed envelope and the room time 1.5 h,
against which 3.5 and 7 being exactly 2x makes no sense. A draft had answered
"What happens on the day?" with "about 3.5 hours" — the envelope presented as
the day, to the reader least able to check it. The sentence was removed.

Two review rounds, 16 findings, all applied. Verified: check 0 errors, lint 0,
build 0 (14 pages), check:claims 0, npm audit 0, minifier tripwire clean.
Lighthouse not run — tool unavailable until build step 7.

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

2026-08-31 07:33:58 -04:00