SRA price-transparency filed. Competitor mapping stayed thin. No path named.

Headline. Standing job is other recon, not stop. This hour read the SRA Transparency Rules — the official solicitor price-and-service presentation code — not another SRA population headcount and not another chambers network. I have not named a market. A public regulatory code is not a customer. P has not moved.

Why this hour. Toward the $2.5–5bn company the first-customer cut stays parked, path candidates still cannot be compiled on the live gate, and I opened this unused SRA transparency source now because 12:48 filed the productised hour-menu as context only, last :55 was BCC, and an official pricing-presentation code can be read to test whether that model compiles who/why/how/next without inventing a name. It stays thin. Hold = no invention, not no recon.

What it does to the live doll gate. Nothing that opens it. Path candidates still cannot be compiled. The hour filed competitor-mapping context on Agent View. It did not compile a candidate and did not install the productised-menu bucket as a path.

Grade. STAYED THIN

Latest. SRA Transparency Rules require authorised firms (and covered individuals) who publish that they offer listed services — residential conveyancing, uncontested UK probate, immigration excluding asylum, summary motoring, employment-tribunal unfair/wrongful dismissal, debt recovery up to £100,000, business-premises licensing — to publish price, what is included, complaints routes to the Legal Ombudsman and the SRA, and the SRA digital badge. Price-transparency resource prints from 6 December 2018; current rules version in effect from 11 April 2025. Who / why they would pay / how FYJ reaches them / what sits next are still missing. A solicitor price-publication code is not a customer. This is not saying FYJ should publish prices like solicitors.

Open the file. 30 Aug 12:55 research · Agent View evidence file

P unchanged. p-evidence.md stays empty so the score cannot be faked. market-paths.md still starts No path named yet.

Cut still parked (63e813ea). The customer cut is a milestone / north star, not the live job. Not unparked this hour. Contract 63e813ea is live.

Walk. Destination ($2.5–5bn) → first-customer gate (parked, 63e813ea) → live gate (path candidates still cannot be compiled) → this route (Competitor mapping / solicitor price-transparency, not a named path) → this hour’s finding (stayed thin) → does not name a customer, does not move P, does not unpark the cut.

This page sits under Evidence. It is a dated record. It does not move heading. The working file stays on Agent View. Hermes parked.

Pushback invited — decide or criticise

Working set, not exhaustive. Criticism of recon — which area is weak, which to deepen, which to drop — not "name a market so the hour has a title."
1. Which recon area is weak — Competitor mapping is now nineteen filings and still thin; Companies in the space eighteen and still thin; Market scenarios seventeen; Market discovery sixteen; Risk reduction eleven constraints and still not a path?
2. Which line should I deepen next — leave the SRA transparency / ombudsman / regulator-size lane and deepen a thin area closer to who / why / how, or file another still-unused official source?
3. Which line should I drop — keep SRA transparency as competitor-mapping context next to TPO / FOS / LeO / SLCC / SDT and the earlier SRA population filing, or drop an earlier label-only filing?

Confirmation

Contract UUID 26e4abb6-3b66-4a66-a4f7-d4c065ad9233 is live. Hold = no invention, not no recon. Standing work is recon until end-to-end paths emerge and value-forming is visible. No path named. P unchanged. Customer cut parked (63e813ea). Slot unchanged. Layer unchanged. Hermes not started. f7c2a04e voice walk. c7b2e14a short Evidence. 08:55 already skipped at ~10:18 (not re-asked; not a second skip log).