adr-sml/docs/03-content-spec.md

# 03 — Content and voice

Authority: `AGENTS.md` §4 (claim register) and §5 (audience model).
Source material: `PL_ADR_Personal_Branding_Strategy_Brief.docx` (2026-05-26) and
`ADR_Site_Content_Brief_for_Claude_Design.md` (2026-05-26).

---

## The one rule

**Every factual claim traces to `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified.** Read the Forbidden
table before writing any number, statistic, or superlative. If you need a fact
you do not have, write `TODO(pouya): <exact question>` and log it in §9. Do not
infer, do not soften, do not carry anything over from the old site.

---

## Voice

**Restrained, precise, and unhedged.** The reader is usually a lawyer. They
detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.

**Do:**

- Short declaratives. "I read the contract and the code." Not "clients benefit
  from a uniquely multidisciplinary perspective."
- First person singular. This is a practitioner brand — "I", not "we", not "the
  practice". The old site's "we" implied a firm that does not exist.
- Concrete nouns. *Lien claim. Change order. System Impact Assessment. Model
  card. Minutes of settlement.* Specificity is the credential.
- Name the limits. "Sole-arbitrator appointments follow the Q.Arb designation;
  co-arbitration work is available now." **The first half traces to §4; the
  second does not — `AGENTS.md` Q36.** Keep the shape of the sentence, which is
  the point being made here, and do not publish the second clause until Q36
  closes. (**No tribunal-secretary work** — D14
  removed the rate and bars offering it; see `docs/07-fees.md`.) Precision about
  what you cannot yet do makes the rest believable.
- Plain words over Latin. "Without prejudice" survives because it is a term of
  art; *inter alia* does not.

**Do not:**

- **Any claim or implication of legal licensure.** D13: the site asserts the JD
  and nothing more. Never "lawyer", "called to the bar", "licensed", "my law
  practice", "my litigation practice", "my clients", "acts for", "represents".
  Implication counts as much as assertion.

  **The approved phrasing is "active litigation exposure" or "involvement in
  litigation and ADR matters" — never "practice" in that context.** Pouya's
  wording, 2026-08-26. So: *Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation
  and ADR boutique, with active exposure to construction, personal injury, POA,
  and SABS matters.* Accurate, specific, and it claims nothing it should not.

  This framing is **interim** — see `AGENTS.md` §12 R1. Raise it with Pouya
  rather than letting it settle in by default.
- Superlatives. No "leading", "premier", "top-rated", "best". They are
  unverifiable, they read as insecure, and marketing rules for regulated
  professions treat them as suspect.
- Outcome language that could be read as a guarantee.
- "Passionate", "dedicated", "committed", "proven track record", "results-driven",
  "leverage", "synergy", "solutions".
- Hedges that erase the claim. The strategy brief warns specifically against
  softening the technical claim to "technologically literate" — **the claim is
  engineering practice, so the copy says engineering practice.**
- Em-dash-heavy rhythm and tricolon padding. One idea per sentence.
- Second-person sales copy on counsel-facing pages. `/for-parties/` is the one
  page written to "you".

---

## The core positioning statement

Reused, adapted, across the hero, the About page, and the PDF bio:

> The dispute resolution practice of Pouya Lajevardi — a credentialed neutral
> who is also close to live litigation and a practising machine-learning and
> infrastructure engineer. Built for commercial, construction, energy,
> technology, and cross-cultural disputes that turn on facts most neutrals take
> on faith: the contract, the code, the engineering documents, and the
> regulatory overlay around them.

Every version of this must survive the §4 check. It does: each element is
verified.

## Approved headline options

From the content brief; all three sit honestly with the practice.

1. *A mediator who reads the contract, the code, and the room.* — **recommended.**
   The cleanest one-sentence statement of the moat, and rare because it is rare.
2. *Engineered for the cases that don't fit a courtroom.*
3. ~~*Disputes resolved by someone who has been on every side of one.*~~
   **Does not clear §4 as written** (flagged 2026-08-26). "Every side" asserts
   having acted as party, as counsel, and as neutral; §4 verifies the neutral
   role and *active litigation exposure*, not the other two. Left in place so
   the option is not silently re-invented — but it cannot be chosen without a §4
   row to choose it from.

## The credential row

Three slots, never counts:

| Slot | Value | Label |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Q.Med** | ADRIC / ADRIO designation |
| 2 | **JD + ML** | Law and engineering |
| 3 | **EN · FA** | Bilingual practice |

Fourth slot where the layout has one: **Q.Arb — commenced August 2026.** Use
that wording, not "in progress": §4 pins it, and the weaker form drifts toward
"nearly complete", which §4 Forbidden bars outright.

The substitution principle (`AGENTS.md` §4): wherever the design wants a "how
many", substitute a longer-arc credential. These are all true at launch and stay
true; none grows by closing files.

---

## Per-page copy notes

### Home
Hero headline from the approved list. Positioning paragraph above. CTAs:
*Request a consultation →* and *How I work*. The approach section makes the
"two directions at once" argument — law and engineering converging on the same
dispute — and keeps the infinity metaphor: *disputes are loops; the work is
redrawing the loop into a line.* First person: "my mark", not "our mark".

### About
400–600 words of narrative, then structured credentials. Tell the three tracks
as one arc, not three lists: a JD and active litigation exposure; a parallel
career in machine learning and infrastructure engineering; a company run
alongside both. The arc is the point — the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb is stated openly as in progress. The brief treats
that arc as part of the story rather than something to obscure.

Omit any section that would be empty. No "Speaking" heading until there is a
talk to list.

### Mediation / Arbitration / Med-Arb
Procedural, specific, unembellished. Name the rules. Describe the formats. State
what a party should expect to do and when. On `/arbitration/`, state the Q.Arb
position in plain terms — what is available now versus what follows designation.

`/med-arb/` addresses the procedural-fairness objection directly: the same
neutral who heard a party's confidential caucus later decides the matter. Do not
elide it. Explain the consent mechanics and when the process is inappropriate.
Meeting the strongest objection is what makes the page worth reading.

### Practice areas
Each page: dispute types, why this practice fits, what the process looks like,
and the market context that makes the area live. Context comes from the strategy
brief §III–IV — Ontario's megaproject pipeline, Bill 40 and grid connection, the
2026 privacy statute, LAT volumes.

**Frame as positioning, not as history.** "Built to facilitate procurement and
subcontract disputes on Ontario's megaproject pipeline" — not "extensive
experience resolving". The first is true and forward-looking. The second is
neither.

### Process
Five steps with real timing. Say what happens if the matter does not settle —
counsel want to know the downside shape before they commit a client's day.

### Fees
**Unblocked — Q4/Q14 answered, D14.** Build from the confirmed card in
`docs/07-fees.md`. Plain table, no "starting from"
evasions, no "contact for pricing" after promising a rate card.

### For parties
The one page in second person. Grade-9 reading level. Short sentences. Says
explicitly: the mediator is not your lawyer and cannot give you legal advice; the
mediator does not decide who is right. Answers what it costs and what happens if
you do not settle.

### Insights
1,200–1,800 words, monthly cadence (brief §VIII). Territories from §VII:
process explainers · regulatory commentary · industry dispute commentary ·
anonymised reflections · technical explainers for lawyers · credentialing content.

Every piece links to at least one practice-area page. Anonymised reflections must
be genuinely unidentifiable — not merely name-stripped. If a matter could be
recognised by the parties to it, it does not run.

### Launch article slate (D9)
Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:

1. *What the Ontario data-centre build-out means for dispute resolution* —
   technology + construction; the strongest single differentiator piece.
2. *When Med-Arb is the right answer, and when it is not* — process explainer;
   feeds `/med-arb/`; high search intent, thin competition.
3. *Bill 40 and grid connection: a dispute-resolution read* — regulatory
   commentary; establishes the energy niche.
4. *What a System Impact Assessment actually evaluates* — technical explainer for
   lawyers; the clearest demonstration of the claim the whole brand rests on.
5. *Choosing a neutral: what counsel should actually ask* — evergreen, useful,
   and it makes the case for this practice without arguing for it.

---

## Compliance checklist — before any page ships

- [ ] Every factual claim appears in `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified
- [ ] No matter counts, settlement rates, dollar figures, or time-to-award stats
- [ ] No testimonials, endorsements, or third-party quotes
- [ ] No superlatives and no guarantee language
- [ ] No claim or implication of legal licensure anywhere (D13)
- [ ] Q.Arb described as commenced August 2026, never as held or nearly complete
- [ ] Nothing implies a firm, a team, or offices that do not exist
- [ ] Contact page states that an inquiry creates no retainer and no
      mediator–party relationship
- [ ] Any comparative claim is factual and verifiable