The register guide for commercial storefront pages — pricing, catalog, product detail, checkout, licensing terms, and the policy/support pages that sit alongside them. Builds on [[house-core]]; restates nothing there. The reader here is a customer, not a colleague or a wiki reader — closer to a product page than an encyclopedia entry, which is why this register carves an explicit exception to house-core's default anti- promotional stance (see §6).

1. Purpose and audience

The reader is a prospective or existing customer on a commercial storefront: deciding whether to buy, checking license terms, or resolving a payment/account question. They bring no context from the organization's internal documentation and are not a wiki reader. Unlike the corporate wiki's institutional allocator or the documentation wiki's technical reader, this reader expects the company to address them directly, the way any commercial storefront does.

2. The shape

Two page shapes, one voice. Transactional/marketing pages (catalog, pricing, licensing terms, product detail, checkout) and policy/support pages (privacy, accessibility, contact, disclaimer) need the same underlying voice; they differ only in whether "we" is natural (§6). Neither shape inherits from communications' announcement/memo/email genres — a pricing page is not a message moving a decision from writer to reader, it is a standing commercial surface a customer arrives at with a question already in mind.

3. Opening

You-first, benefit-or-fact-first — not a scene-setting lead. The opening sentence should be readable by a visitor who has seen nothing else on the site. Isolation test: lift the first sentence out; if it only makes sense as a continuation of surrounding chrome, it fails.

4. Paragraph and sentence rhythm

No delta from [[house-core]]'s default targets. Storefront/policy copy runs shorter in practice (most surveyed passages ran 2–4 sentences per section) but that reflects the content, not a distinct rhythm rule.

5. Headings and scannability

Numbered sections read naturally on policy pages (disclaimer, privacy, accessibility) — keep as-is where already in use. Marketing/catalog pages use plain H2s per topic. No delta from [[house-core]].

6. Voice and tone — the explicit house-core exception

[[house-core]] excludes "the promotional register of a product page" as its general rule. This register is the named exception: a storefront page is a product page, and its job is to move a purchase decision, not to teach a subject. Within that exception, one rule still governs absolutely:

Named actor, not narrating observer. The subject of a sentence describing what the company does is "you" (the reader), the brand name as a named actor ("PointSav distributes..."), or "we" — never the impersonal site itself ("this site distributes...", "this site collects..."). A sentence with "this site" as its subject reads as a third party describing the company from outside, rather than the company speaking to the reader — a measurably different effect, not just a wording preference.

"We" placement is not uniform across the surface — the one place this register diverges internally. Verified against two live hyperscaler storefronts (AWS pricing, Azure pricing, AWS contact-us, fetched 2026-08-02) before adoption, not assumed:

• On pricing/catalog/licensing pages: "you/your" address dominates, the brand name carries the actor role when one is needed, "we" is nearly absent.
• On support/policy pages (contact, accessibility, privacy-adjacent): "we" appears naturally alongside "you," without displacing it.
• Neither reference site ever used the impersonal "this site/it does X" register anywhere sampled.

Legal-precision exception, not a loophole. "This site" (or the local equivalent) survives wherever it does real disambiguating work — distinguishing what this specific surface does from what a parent company's other properties do, or where it is a standard legal-drafting formula ("by using this site, you acknowledge..."). Test: would removing the site-scoping silently widen a factual or legal claim to cover the whole company rather than just this surface? If yes, keep it — reworded to keep it if needed ("on this site, we collect...") rather than deleted.

Not yet verified beyond one surface. The "we"-placement split above is derived from software.pointsav.com plus two external reference sites — not yet confirmed to generalize to a second internal commerce surface. Re-verify before assuming it applies elsewhere in the catalog.

7. Code and examples

None expected. No code blocks were found on any storefront page surveyed.

8. Worked examples

Impersonal narration → named actor / direct address (licensing terms page):

Weaker: "software.pointsav.com distributes pre-compiled binaries under four license tiers... Applies to os-orchestration... This is the company's stated commercial moat."

Stronger: "PointSav distributes pre-compiled binaries under four license tiers... This tier applies to os-orchestration... It's PointSav's stated commercial moat."

Impersonal narration → "we" on a policy page (privacy page):

Weaker: "This site collects payment-verification data only... This site does not use tracking cookies for analytics or advertising."

Stronger: "On this site, we collect payment-verification data only... We don't use tracking cookies for analytics or advertising."

The "on this site" scoping survives the rewrite — dropping it would silently widen the "collects...only" claim from this surface to the whole company.

A claim deleted instead of re-voiced — a mistake to avoid, not a model:

An earlier pass deleted a real trust claim ("this catalog is rendered directly from the release catalog—what you see here is exactly what the download API serves") rather than re-voicing it, because the sentence also leaked an internal implementation detail ("the download API"). Corrected: "This catalog always matches what's actually available to download—nothing here is stale or hand-curated." Voice edits re-voice; they do not silently delete a claim that has an unrelated problem too — fix the two problems separately and visibly.

9. Pre-publish checklist

• Does every sentence describing what the company does have "you," the brand name, or "we" as its subject — never the impersonal site/page itself?
• On a pricing/catalog/licensing page: is "we" nearly absent, with "you" and the named brand carrying the voice instead?
• On a policy/support page: does "we" appear naturally, without displacing "you"?
• Wherever "this site" (or local equivalent) survived, does it do genuine disambiguating work — not left in by default?
• Did a voice edit ever also delete a factual or technical claim, rather than re-voicing it in place?
• Does the Spanish (or other locale) pair mirror the same voice shift sentence for sentence, not just the English side?