- Shipped
- September 16, 2026 at 3:23 AM UTC
- Author
- Kamo
- Commit
- 80c93f8
**************** argues that a business paying an agency per seat is paying for software the agency did not build, host, or keep running. It ends by asking who should get that money and has never had a door to point at. This is the door. 59 pages under /services: a hub, three pillars, 30 capability pages, 12 evidence pages, 5 comparisons, and six on how an engagement actually runs. Structure in TypeScript, prose in the dictionary — the pattern the 37 industries, 45 integrations and 41 glossary terms already use, so a translator can rewrite every sentence and cannot damage a slug or a route. Four new collections, gated on the `services` namespace rather than `collections`: the latter is already translated into many locales and reusing it would claim a French service page exists before a word of it does. Today every service page canonicals to English and appears in the English sitemap only, which is what the machinery already does for a page whose copy has not been translated. The portfolio is our own platform, because it is the only one we can let a visitor inspect: the mail servers, the telephone switches, the WebRTC media stack, the attribution pipeline, the cluster, and this website. Every number on those pages carries the command it came from and the day it was read, and scripts/check-services.ts fails the build on a fact that has neither — along with a pillar slug that a static /services child would shadow, a dangling evidence reference, an orphan work page, and a comparison that cannot name a case against itself. That last rule is not decoration: a comparison page that cannot argue against itself is an advertisement wearing a table. Pricing publishes the mechanism rather than a table. We quote after discovery and fix the number first; what moves it, what is never in it (no percentage of ad spend, no markup on anything bought for you) and when you find out are all on /services/how-we-quote. /services/start posts an existing topic deliberately — the support service resolves topicTitle against topics that already exist and answers 400 otherwise, so a "Web Design" topic would have compiled, deployed, looked correct, and rejected every submission. Two accessibility fixes that are not strictly this feature but ship on every page of it. globals.css:52 says never to use a raw --color-primary* for small text; the cookie consent banner did, at 2.18:1, on every page of the site, and RelatedContent did the same on solutions, integrations, alternatives and glossary. Both now use the readable accent, and the banner's policy links are white — --color-accent-on-canvas is computed to hit exactly 4.5:1 against the canvas, which leaves no headroom for the slightly raised surface the banner sits on. All 19 service pages, the homepage, /pricing and /solutions/* now pass axe at WCAG 2.2 AA with zero violations; the fees article's own table-of-contents badges still fail and are left alone.