House profile for the corporate wiki (corporate.woodfinegroup.com). Layers on [[guide-reference]] — every article here is a TOPIC. Restates neither it nor [[house-core]]; it adds only what is specific to this wiki's reader. The register facts come from [[editorial-language-registers]] (institutional financial-press register). Where this profile is silent, the reference guide governs.

1. Purpose and audience

The reader is an institutional decision-maker — a banker, a family-office principal, an institutional investor, an auditor. They have financial literacy and no obligation to understand software architecture. They read to make or defend a capital-allocation decision, or to evaluate the platform's structure and sponsors.

The register is institutional financial-press: neutral, exact, consequence-first. The governing test for every sentence is one question, stated without naming any firm: does this serve a senior finance reader who understands contracts, risk, and regulation but does not read source code? If a sentence only lands for an engineer, it fails here.

2. The shape

Inherits the reference TOPIC shape — lead, context, mechanism section by section, limits and relations. No structured-record variants; corporate articles are continuous prose.

Bilingual pair — adaptation, not translation

The Spanish pair (.es.md) is a strategic adaptation for the Spanish-speaking allocator, not a sentence-for-sentence rendering. Emphasis, examples, and even the H2 order may reorganise where that reader enters the subject differently. What survives unchanged is every figure, every disclosure sentence, and the forward-looking posture — the facts and their regulatory framing are identical in both languages.

3. Opening — consequence first

Inherits the reference lead, sharpened to one rule: the most important fact for a capital allocator goes in sentence one. Not the history, not the mechanism's origin — the consequence for the reader who must decide. The isolation test is a capital-allocator test: lift the lead out, and a principal who sees nothing else must know what changes for their capital.

4. Paragraph and sentence rhythm

The financial-press delta on the reference guide: consequence and disclosure sentences target 14–18 words and stay under 25 — tighter than the reference default. An analytical sentence that carries a single multi-condition test — a covenant, a debt-sizing constraint, a rate mechanism — may run longer when splitting it would fragment one logical unit; prefer the split wherever it does not fragment the logic. Numbers are always specific: "$7 per month," not "low cost"; "top-400 development markets," not "major markets." (The ≤25 target is a target, not a hard gate — calibrated 2026-07-01 against strong analytical articles; see the calibration report.)

5. Headings and scannability

Inherits the reference guide's density. No tables of commands, no code callouts — the recurring structure here is prose punctuated by named figures, not records.

6. Voice and tone — prose only

No code. Ever. The corporate reader does not need a terminal command, and a code block signals the wrong register to a capital allocator. Every platform-internal term is translated to a plain-language equivalent on first use — the plain equivalent precedes the term, never the reverse — and the term wikilinks at that first mention and only there ([[house-core]] §Cross-references governs). Passive voice reads as evasion to this reader; name the actor and the consequence.

The accessibility cue for the finance reader mirrors the documentation wiki's "why it matters" sentence, inverted: wherever a technical mechanism must appear, its consequence stands alone in plain financial terms before the mechanism is named, so the reader who skips the mechanism still keeps the fact that moves their decision.

The move this profile turns on is the consequence-first factual clause:

The Direct-Hold framework removes the pool. Each property is its own legal and financial unit.

7. Code and examples

None. This is the code policy: prose only. Where a mechanism is genuinely technical, describe its consequence in institutional terms and link to the documentation wiki for the reader who wants the mechanism.

8. Worked examples

Mechanism-first → consequence-first.

Weaker: The redemption engine processes unit-level exit requests through a per-property ledger. Stronger: An investor can exit one property without disturbing the others. Each holding redeems on its own ledger.

The consequence for the allocator leads; the mechanism follows in plain terms.

Asserted future as fact → BCSC forward-looking posture.

Weaker: The Sovereign Data Foundation audits every holding and holds the governance mandate. Stronger: The Sovereign Data Foundation is the intended future audit and governance body; the platform plans to place holdings under its mandate.

Sovereign Data Foundation appears only in planned/intended/may/target terms — never as a current equity holder, active auditor, or governance body. This is the critical check for this wiki: the article and the index.md lede must both satisfy it. If in doubt, flag and do not publish.

9. Pre-publish checklist

• Does sentence one carry the consequence for a capital allocator, not the history or mechanism?
• Would a senior finance reader who does not read source code follow every sentence?
• Is the article prose-only, with zero code blocks?
• Is every platform-internal term preceded by a plain-language equivalent on first use, and wikilinked at that first mention only?
• Where a mechanism appears, does its plain-financial consequence stand alone before it?
• Are all numbers specific, and are consequence and disclosure sentences within the 25-word target (with only genuine single-test analytical sentences running longer)?
• Does every forward-looking claim carry planned/intended/may/target, and is the Sovereign Data Foundation referenced only in those terms?
• Does the Spanish pair adapt for its reader while keeping every figure, disclosure sentence, and forward-looking frame identical?