/**
 * The intake handler's OWN field table. Spec: docs/05-backend-spec.md §Form fields.
 *
 * ⚠️ THIS IS A SECOND, INDEPENDENT COPY OF THE FORM'S FIELD LIST, AND THE
 * DUPLICATION IS ARCHITECTURAL RATHER THAN AN OVERSIGHT.
 *
 * docs/05: "Client-side validation is a convenience. **The Lambda re-validates
 * everything.**" A server that validates against a list the client shipped it is
 * not validating — it is asking the caller what the rules are. And this file is
 * deployed inside the Lambda zip, which cannot import from `src/` at all.
 *
 * WHAT KEEPS THE TWO HONEST IS A CHECK, NOT A SHARED IMPORT.
 * `npm run check:intake` imports this module and `src/data/intake.ts` and
 * asserts they agree on every field name, on which are required, on every length
 * cap, and on every closed option set. A disagreement means either the form
 * offers something the handler rejects — a lost inquiry that looks like a
 * browser bug — or the handler accepts something no form ever shows.
 *
 * It lives in its own file rather than inside `handler.mjs` so the check can
 * import it. `handler.mjs` calls `requireEnv()` at module scope and throws
 * without a configured environment, so importing THAT would mean inventing
 * fixture credentials to run a check that has nothing to do with them.
 * (The first version of the check scraped this table out of the handler as text
 * and evaluated it. Its "refuse anything executable" guard then rejected the
 * table on the word `process` — which is a FIELD NAME. A guard that fires on the
 * data it exists to protect is worse than no guard, and the fix was to stop
 * scraping.)
 *
 * `select` and `radio` fields carry their option list, and a value outside it is
 * REJECTED rather than coerced — a select is a closed set, and a request that
 * sends something else is not a browser.
 *
 * ⚠️ **`label` IS HERE BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATION EMAIL PRINTED FIELD NAMES.**
 * `summaryLines` was `${f.name}: ${value}`, so the inquirer's receipt read
 * `practiceArea: Construction`, `otherParties: …`, `opposingCounsel: …`. That
 * email is the one artefact an inquirer keeps from this practice, and it is also
 * the artefact that quotes third-party names back at them, so its legibility is
 * not cosmetic. Found by `adversarial-reviewer`, 2026-08-31.
 * `npm run check:intake` compares labels as well as names, requiredness, caps
 * and option sets — so the receipt cannot drift from the form's own wording.
 */
export const FIELDS = [
  { name: 'name', label: 'Your name', required: true, max: 120 },
  { name: 'email', label: 'Email', required: true, max: 254 },
  { name: 'phone', label: 'Phone', required: false, max: 40 },
  {
    name: 'role',
    label: 'Your role',
    required: true,
    options: ['Counsel', 'In-house', 'Party', 'Institution', 'Other'],
  },
  {
    name: 'organisation',
    label: 'Firm or organisation',
    required: false,
    max: 160,
  },
  {
    name: 'process',
    label: 'Process sought',
    required: true,
    options: [
      'Mediation',
      'Arbitration',
      'Med-Arb',
      'Early neutral evaluation',
      'Not sure',
    ],
  },
  {
    name: 'practiceArea',
    label: 'Subject matter',
    required: true,
    options: [
      'Construction',
      'Technology',
      'Energy',
      'Insurance',
      'Shareholder',
      'Cross-border',
      'Other',
    ],
  },
  { name: 'otherParties', label: 'Other parties', required: false, max: 300 },
  {
    name: 'opposingCounsel',
    label: 'Opposing counsel',
    required: false,
    max: 300,
  },
  {
    name: 'summary',
    label: 'What the dispute is about',
    required: true,
    max: 2000,
  },
  {
    name: 'timing',
    label: 'Timing',
    required: false,
    options: ['Urgent', 'Within 30 days', 'Within 90 days', 'Exploring'],
  },
  {
    name: 'preferredContact',
    label: 'Preferred reply',
    required: false,
    options: ['Email', 'Phone'],
  },
];

/**
 * The honeypot field name. NOT in `FIELDS`, and that is load-bearing: it is
 * checked before validation and a non-empty value gets the SUCCESS page, not a
 * rejection. Telling a bot it was detected is how the next version of the bot
 * stops filling the field. `check:intake` asserts it is absent from `FIELDS`.
 */
export const HONEYPOT = 'company_website';

/**
 * The SECOND honeypot — a decoy checkbox that must arrive ABSENT. Also not in
 * `FIELDS`, for the same reason, and `check:intake` asserts that too.
 *
 * ⚠️ **DIFFERENT TRAP, NOT A SECOND COPY.** `HONEYPOT` catches a bot that fills
 * every text input; this catches one that sets every control it enumerates.
 *
 * ⚠️ **IT IS PROBABLY INERT AGAINST THE 2026-09-04 PAIR, AND THE COMMENT HERE
 * SAID THE OPPOSITE FOR ONE ROUND.** They left `HONEYPOT` empty, so they skip
 * hidden fields — and a bot that skips a hidden text input skips a hidden
 * checkbox. `src/data/intake.ts` carries the full argument; this is defence in
 * depth against a different class, not a counter to the observed one.
 *
 * ⚠️ **UNCHECKED SENDS NOTHING, so absence is the pass — and so is an empty
 * value, because the handler tests for a non-empty one rather than for mere
 * presence.** See
 * `src/data/intake.ts` for the full reasoning; the two files state it separately
 * because they are separately deployed and `check:intake` is what keeps the
 * NAMES in step, not the comments.
 */
export const DECOY_CHECKBOX = 'updates_optin';