docs: record content and media acceptance

docs/reviews/audience-validation.md

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 # Evidence-first audience validation
 
-Status: **PENDING — no independent reviewer session has been run.**
+Status: **PENDING — the 2026-09-05 compiled-preview acceptance review passed its
+single-reviewer five-second identity check, but no independent three-person
+session has been run.**
 
 This is a release checkpoint, not an automated substitute for people. It must use at least three independent reviewers representing hiring-screening and technical-interview perspectives. Reviewers use Static or reduced motion first so the information hierarchy is judged without relying on the scene.
 
@@ -29,6 +31,22 @@ This is a release checkpoint, not an automated substitute for people. It must us
 
 Any threshold failure requires content or hierarchy revision. It is not a reason to add visual effects.
 
+## 2026-09-05 acceptance observation
+
+One uncoached compiled-preview review was performed at desktop, 320×568,
+200%-zoom-equivalent, Static, reduced-motion, keyboard-only, no-JavaScript, and
+print-relevant states. At the initial view, the reviewer could identify Luca
+Pîslaru, the equal “System Administrator & Full-Stack Developer” positioning,
+and the email action. The first scan also exposed Nextcloud migration/recovery
+as the principal operations proof and the private medication tracker as the
+principal developer proof. The evidence hierarchy remained readable over the
+night-drive scene, and the final Contact section again presented email as the
+dominant action.
+
+This observation is technical release evidence only. It is one review, not
+three independent hiring/technical participants, so it does not satisfy or
+replace the threshold below.
+
 ## Evidence form
 
 | Reviewer  | Perspective         | Mode/browser/viewport | 30 s identity/role/contact | 60 s systems proof | 60 s software proof | Professional/readable (1–5) | Balance (1–5) | Notes |