{SITE.name}

{ designationLine.map((part, i) => ( {i > 0 && ( )} {part} )) }

I am {ROLE.title} at {ROLE.at}, with {ROLE.litigationLine} across{' '} {ROLE.litigationAreas.slice(0, -1).join(', ')} and{' '} {ROLE.litigationAreas.at(-1)}. I mediate. I accept arbitration appointments in commercial matters. I also work as a machine-learning and infrastructure engineer.

I came to dispute resolution from two directions, and I still work in both.

The first is law. I hold a JD from Bond University, and I am{' '} {ROLE.title} at {ROLE.at}. That role gives me {ROLE.litigationLine} — personal injury, construction, regulatory matters under the Provincial Offences Act, and accident benefits under the SABS. What that exposure is actually worth in a mediation is unglamorous: I have seen how these files get built. Which productions turn out to be thin. Where expert reports talk past each other rather than disagree. Which issues resolve once someone puts the documents in order, and which ones never will.

The second is engineering. I work as a machine-learning and infrastructure engineer. That is current practice, not a former career and not an interest: I read code, model documentation, deployment topology, and the operational records that show what a system did rather than what a specification said it would do.

{ /* FROM A CONSTANT — ASYMMETRY_LINE in src/data/site.ts. It was typed here and separately on `/`, and the two copies had already diverged (full stops here, a comma there) inside the session that wrote both. Q41(a) makes this the sentence responsible for foreclosing the licence implication, so it is the worst string on the site to let drift. */ }

{ASYMMETRY_LINE}

{ /* A SECOND PARAGRAPH HERE WAS CANDOUR ABOUT AN INCOMPLETE CREDENTIAL — "I would rather say where I am on the arc". Q.Arb is held; do not write another. `check:claims` q-arb-as-a-stage catches the form. */ }

Mediation is where they meet. {DESIGNATIONS_HELD_LINE}, and I have completed multiple sole mediations. I accept arbitration appointments in commercial matters — as sole arbitrator, as a party-appointed arbitrator, and in co-arbitration. Where a matter turns on a technical question, I read the technical material myself.

{ /* BOTH ADDITIONS TO THIS SENTENCE CAME BACK OUT. §4 verifies exactly one relation — *"Operator of SML Company Ltd. alongside the practice"* — and that is now all it says. "It is not a law firm and does not hold itself out as one" — a negative REGULATORY statement with no row, attached to the one §4 row carrying an express caution against being read together with the licence row *"into an implication that neither row makes."* Added to be helpful; it touches exactly what §4 says not to touch. "the company through which the engineering work is done" — a corporate-structure claim. §4 verifies operation alongside the practice, the jurisdiction of incorporation and the place of business — not which work runs through which vehicle. */ } { /* §4 VERBATIM: "Operator of SML Company Ltd. **alongside the practice**." This read "alongside both", where "both" resolved to the law track and the engineering track — a concurrency claim §4 does not make, flagged by `claims-auditor` 2026-08-28. Two neighbouring additions were deleted from this section for the same reason (see below), and the wording had propagated from docs/03, now corrected too. NOT a corporate-structure claim either — see schema.ts on why `worksFor` is withheld. */ }

I run SML Company Ltd alongside the practice.

{ /* ⚠️ NO SCOPE CLAIM AND NO COVERAGE CLAIM. §4 has no row for the subject matter of his ADR work, and `/practice/insurance/` ships "Disputes between an insured person and an insurer" — an individual-versus-insurer SABS dispute is not commercial, so this paragraph must not declare the six areas a commercial class. What Q35 grants is the frame used here: an area may be named where he can competently accept an appointment, framed as positioning rather than claimed history. "I accept appointments in" is that frame; "the subject matter runs across" is not, because §Background is where a reader defaults to reading history. */ }

I accept appointments in six areas: construction and infrastructure; technology, AI and data; energy and the grid; insurance and accident benefits; shareholder and family-business disputes; and cross-border matters. What those have in common is a record somebody has to read closely, and a dispute that turns on what is actually in it.

I have also completed the Kompass Arbitration Certificate Program and the Stitt Feld Handy negotiation and ADR workshop sequence. Neither is a designation, and I name them precisely for that reason: process training is the easiest thing in this field to assert loosely, so it is worth stating exactly what it was.

{ /* THE NEUTRALITY LINE. It is a disclaimer and it earns its place: docs/03 requires the equivalent on `/for-parties/`, and this is the page an appointing body reads. It also states the negative of the implication §4 Forbidden bars — "acts for clients", "represents parties" — which is a stronger position than merely never asserting it. Q42's reasoning is the same reasoning: Pouya struck settlement counsel because a partisan role "undercuts the brand's central claim". This sentence is that claim, stated. The family-law exclusion is NOT here. Pouya scoped it to `/practice/shareholder/` — "One sentence, not a section" — and widening it to this page is his call, not an implementer's. */ } { /* THIS SENTENCE HAS NOW BEEN WRONG IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, WHICH IS WHY THE THIRD VERSION AVOIDS THE AXIS ALTOGETHER. "I do not give legal advice" — flagged because "do not" describes an ELECTION, and an election implies the entitlement to choose. "I cannot give legal advice" — flagged on the next pass because "cannot" is a DENIAL of entitlement, and §4 on licence status is explicit: *"Do not assert it, do not deny it, do not infer it from anything else here."* Both readings are correct and they point in opposite directions, because both sentences make a claim about CAPACITY. So this one does not: it states the ROLE and its consequence for the reader, and it is the only form that asserts nothing and denies nothing. The underlying question is R1's. AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS COMMENT CITED `docs/03`'s `/for-parties/` directive as the sanctioned example — *"the mediator is not your lawyer" — role, not capacity*. That was wrong twice: "not your lawyer" PRESUPPOSES lawyer status, which §4 Forbidden bars of Pouya and D13 bars by implication; and the half of that sentence this comment did not quote was "cannot give you legal advice", which is the denial the comment itself says was struck twelve lines above. `docs/03` has since been corrected. Do not re-import an example from a spec without reading the whole sentence it sits in. */ }

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.

{SITE.name}

" — false. `PerformanceObserver` at 1280x900: LCP element is `IMG.portrait-img`, size 229,679; the

{group.title}

{SITE.name}

" — **false.** `PerformanceObserver` at 1280x900: LCP element is `IMG.portrait-img`, size 229,679; the

{group.title}

" — false. `PerformanceObserver` at 1280x900: LCP element is `IMG.portrait-img`, size 229,679; the