Pouya LajevardiandClaude Opus 5
165d259f5c
Pouya's rulings and the page are one commit, not two, because they are not separable: Q37 changed the credential label the page renders, Q39 scoped the arbitration copy, and Q35 gave Med-Arb the row that lets the footer link stand. Splitting them would produce a commit where the register says one thing and the page says another. RULINGS Q39 — ANSWERED, and my assertion was FALSE as a universal. Pouya checked rather than defended. Family arbitration in Ontario is gated: prescribed training, 14h on screening for domestic violence and power imbalances, 30h of Ontario family law for arbitrators outside the bar, 10h ongoing per two years. claims-auditor produced that counter-example from inside the repo on 2026-08-26 and it was right. The source is now IN the repo per R14 — docs/reference/ontario-family-arbitration-training.md, retrieved with its provenance — and §4 states which half it establishes: the family gate directly, the commercial half only by absence. So "commercial arbitration in Ontario requires no licence and no designation" is recorded as Pouya's stated position, unstamped. What disposes of the question is the scope exclusion: he does not do family arbitration, so it is NOT OFFERED and the gate never bears on the practice. The false universal survived in three more live places, found by grep, not recall: §4's NOT-NEGOTIABLE boundary bullet (the boundary paragraph breaching its own boundary), §9's Q33 closure row, and a comment in SiteHeader.astro. Q35 — ANSWERED, all four items, and the answer supplied a gate that was missing. Med-Arb gets an Offerings row and stays in the footer sitemap. The six subject-matter labels pass test 1. §4 gains "Subject-matter areas — the publication gate": competence to accept an appointment, AND a page that frames it as positioning without claiming history. Nothing in the nav or footer is unrowed any more. Q37 — ANSWERED. "Law and engineering" becomes "Legal training and engineering practice". A degree is not a practice; the parallel was doing the implying. Q38/R13 — the committed SVG does not close it; the walk-back went too far. It renders faithfully BECAUSE it is the raster. R13 stays open. R1 — surfaced and acknowledged; the interim licensure framing is now carried by a shipped page rather than a spec, which raises the stakes. BUILD STEP 2 Seven of docs/01's eight home sections, six new components, zero JavaScript. Section 7 (Latest insights) ships at step 7 with the collection it lists — recorded in docs/01 and in the page, not just here. Four credential slots, not three: §4's paired-disclosure condition requires the Q.Arb stage on any page that offers arbitration. No booking link (R6). The masthead tagline is suppressed on / (it duplicated the hero eyebrow). The step-1 proof sheet is deleted, and five live references to it were found by grep. WHAT THE REVIEWS FOUND — 24 findings across the two passes claims-auditor FAILED it on ten, every one implication or scope rather than fabrication, which is where D13 says the risk lives. The four that mattered: "I mediate and arbitrate" asserted a track record §4 does not hold for arbitration; the JSON-LD asserted arbitration twice and stated the stage nowhere (a crawler-only claim is still a claim); "at one published rate with preparation time included" misdescribed money against docs/07's two day rates and capped prep allowance; and "Law and engineering are not blended here" was Q37's struck parallel relocated into prose one day after Pouya struck it. It also found the Canadian Tax Foundation missing from §9 Q8 — a stale second copy of a fact that would have bitten at step 3. adversarial-reviewer found fourteen, three blocking. The first was class="section-head" on <SectionHeading> never matching — the parent-cannot- style-a-child defect for the FOURTH time, written into a diff where I had just added fresh warnings about it to two other components. Measured: 0px margin, 0px gap, headings over the card edges, with astro check and eslint both clean. I had looked at a screenshot of that section and passed over it. Fixed with a page-owned wrapper (48px, measured) and the prop is deleted from six components so it is now a build error. Also: the credential row was never "two up on a phone" and its comment said it was; PROCESS was hardcoded in the page against the reason written in site.ts; 83px of residual overflow at a 200% default font size, now 3px. Seven more I found myself first, including <Picture widths> declaring the untouched 1600px master as the <img src> fallback (254,626 B for a 476px slot, and the build log said "before: 349kB" either way), and a prop named `as` silently turning off type-checking for a whole component. VERIFICATION — run, not asserted. Full figures in AGENTS.md entry (w). npx tsc 6.0.3 · check 0/0/0 · lint clean · build clean · audit 0 1 <script> and it is JSON-LD; non-JSON-LD scripts 0; no JS bundle; identical page with script execution disabled (444 nodes, 6,578 chars) Phase 5 minifier check: no `animation` shorthand beside animation-timeline overflow 0 at 14 widths, AND every mark measured at 1.5654-1.5657 vs 1.5657 one h1, no heading skips, focus order == DOM order across 44 focusables 31 painted contrast pairs at 3 widths, 0 failures 72/72 hit-test points across 8 cards resolve to the card's link print 0 hidden, reduced-motion 0 hidden Lighthouse NOT RUN — tool unavailable until step 7 (R11) HTML validator NOT RUN, and 4 of 12 srcsets carry a duplicate 1x descriptor Opened for Pouya: Q40 (one OG image for nineteen pages), Q41 (does Q37 reach prose; may the comparative be restored; what LAT pre-hearing mediation means), Q42 (the four "also offered" processes have no row), Q43 (the process timings are published commitments with no row). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0148NztQskLKKApP5SzAA78e
adr.smlcompany.ca
The dispute resolution practice of Pouya Lajevardi — Toronto.
A static site built with Astro, built for deployment to Amazon S3 behind CloudFront by Gitea Actions — see Deployment; the pipeline is not yet proven.
Quick start
nvm use # Node 22 LTS — the floor is in package.json engines
npm install
npm run dev # http://localhost:4321
Scripts
| Command | Does |
|---|---|
npm run dev |
Development server with hot reload |
npm run build |
Static build to ./dist |
npm run preview |
Serve the built site locally |
npm run check |
astro check — type and template errors |
npm run lint |
ESLint + Prettier check |
npm run format |
Prettier — rewrite files in place |
npm run deploy |
Build and deploy from this machine — see Deployment |
Before you contribute
Read AGENTS.md first, and maintain it as you work — it is the living
record of what this project is, what was decided, and why. Then read
CLAUDE.md for the working rules, and the specs in docs/.
The single hardest rule: no factual claim about Pouya, his credentials, his
experience, or his practice ships unless it appears in the verified register in
AGENTS.md §4. This is a public marketing surface, and the site it replaces
contained fabricated credentials.
How work is done here
Pouya decides; Claude Code implements and then adversarially reviews its own
work. Run /build <task> for any substantive change — it plans, implements,
runs two independent review agents on the diff (the claims audit wherever copy
changed), resolves the findings, verifies the build, and records the session in
AGENTS.md. /review runs the review pass alone; /wrap closes a session.
Full protocol and prompt guidance: docs/08-execution-protocol.md.
Deployment
Today, deploys run locally: npm run deploy (scripts/deploy-local.sh).
It runs the same guard, the same three sync passes with the same cache headers,
and the same invalidation as the CI workflow — at this scale the pipeline
changes only how a deploy is triggered, not what it does. The script and
.gitea/workflows/deploy.yml are one artefact in two places: change one, change
both.
.gitea/workflows/deploy.yml is the CI pipeline — Gitea Actions, not GitHub
Actions. It has never run, for two reasons that are not oversights:
- The scoped IAM user does not exist.
aws iam get-user --user-name adr-sml-deployreturnsNoSuchEntity(AGENTS.mdQ22). - Actions are not enabled and no runner is registered. The Gitea instance is jointly administered, so both need its second administrator (Q23).
Its first step is a guard: the run aborts, naming what is missing, if any required variable or either AWS secret is empty. Only emptiness is tested and no value is echoed.
The GitHub Actions equivalent, which uses OIDC role assumption, is kept as
docs/reference/github-actions-oidc.yml.example in case the project ever moves
to a forge that supports it. It sits outside .github/workflows/ on purpose:
Gitea falls back to that directory when .gitea/workflows is absent, so a
workflow file left there with a push trigger would be only conditionally
inert. As an .example under docs/ it cannot be picked up at all.
The pipeline is designed around a long-lived AWS credential, and it does not
exist yet. Gitea is not an AWS OIDC provider, so there is no role to assume:
deploys are to authenticate as a scoped IAM user, adr-sml-deploy, with its
access key in the repository's Gitea Actions secrets. aws iam get-user
confirms that user has not been created (Q22). In the meantime the local script
refuses to run as user/pouya, the broadly-permissioned personal user —
see AGENTS.md §10. Two things are meant to bound the risk, and neither is in
place yet:
- The policy must stay narrow. Four actions:
s3:ListBucketon one bucket,s3:PutObjectands3:DeleteObjecton that bucket's contents, andcloudfront:CreateInvalidationon one distribution. NoAction: "*", noResource: "*", nothing outside that one bucket and that one distribution. The AWS account is shared with unrelated projects, including a bucket whose name indicates another business's production database backups — that narrowness is what keeps a compromised runner away from it, and it is load-bearing rather than hygiene. SeeAGENTS.md§10. If a deploy step needs a permission the policy lacks, question the step; do not widen the policy. - The key must be rotated quarterly, and nobody owns that yet. Create a second access key, update the Gitea secrets, confirm a deploy succeeds, then delete the old one — rotation that leaves the old key active is not rotation. OIDC would have removed the obligation entirely; it is unavailable, so this is a standing calendar task still waiting on an owner.
Full procedure, IAM policy, runner setup, and cutover checklist:
docs/06-deployment.md.