Complete WP-0004 T09: global choice-of-law and dispute-resolution strategy

Cross-cutting research (New York Convention enforceability, neutral-seat
arbitration practice, and a consolidated drafting principle) revises the
China finding from T06/TREN-T06: China has enforced the New York
Convention since 1986 (arbitral awards travel via a ~172-state regime
with limited refusal grounds) but has ratified no foreign-judgment
convention, relying on patchy bilateral treaties and evolving reciprocity
for court judgments specifically. Arbitration, not the litigation-focused
China rider previously recommended, is likely the more promising
enforceability path for a Chinese Customer - and for the Enforcement
Partner Agreement too, per a cross-reference added to
specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md.

Also produces a consolidated drafting principle: write clarity-sensitive
clauses to satisfy Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's UCTA reasonableness,
and Australia's expanded Unfair Contract Terms regime simultaneously,
since research this program has already found separately shows none of
the three reduces to another.

Updates License Appendix A item 6 and CUA Appendix A item 1 accordingly.
WP-0004 now has 9 of 10 tasks done; only the human-gated T10 synthesis
remains.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

specs/TargetRevenueCommercialUseAgreement-V1C1.md

@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ This appendix is not part of the operative agreement text. It tracks what must b
 
 | # | Section | Item | Status | Notes |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
-| 1 | §18 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | Should be resolved jointly with License §11.1 Appendix A item 6. **China (T06) confirmed this cannot be a single global clause**: foreign governing law requires a "foreign-related" contract and remains subject to a vague "public interest" override — a dedicated China rider naming Chinese law/venue is the realistic path, not an exception to a shared clause. All 8 jurisdiction/family tasks in `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md` are now done (T01–T08); T09–T10 (cross-cutting strategy and synthesis) remain open. |
+| 1 | §18 | Governing law and venue selection | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** | Should be resolved jointly with License §11.1 Appendix A item 6. All 9 of `workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md`'s T01–T09 are now done; only T10 (synthesis) remains. **T09 revises the China finding from T06**: rather than a China-specific litigation rider, arbitration is likely more promising — China has enforced the New York Convention since 1986 (arbitral awards travel via a ~172-state regime with limited refusal grounds) but has ratified no foreign-judgment convention, leaving court-judgment enforcement to patchy bilateral treaties and evolving reciprocity. See `history/260729-TRSL-GlobalChoiceOfLaw-Strategy.md`. |
 | 2 | §6 | Audit rights scope, frequency, and cost allocation | **[LEGAL]** | Drafted from common convention, not dedicated research; no WP-0001 task covered commercial-audit norms. |
 | 3 | §14 | Liability cap methodology (fees-paid-in-12-months) | **[LEGAL]** — elevated priority | Common default, now confirmed to face **direct, default-case scrutiny in the UK (UCTA reasonableness) and, most significantly, Australia**, where the November 2023-expanded Unfair Contract Terms regime covers standard-form contracts with any business under 100 employees/$10M turnover by default — i.e., most realistic Customers, not an edge case. Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's UCTA, and Australia's UCT regime converge on the same drafting fix: make the cap prominent and proportionate to the actual Exhibit A Fee, not flat boilerplate. See `history/260729-TRSL-Jurisdiction-AsiaPacific.md` §1. |
 | 4 | §13 | Indemnification clause — currently unwritten | **[LEGAL, OPEN]** — highest priority in this document | Deliberately left blank rather than guessed; a wrong default here carries real financial exposure. |