2026-09-06 18:25:07
Anonymous:
REV102 r4: PMU002 applied (D016 confirms baseline, D018 criterion 11 added to checklist, D015 contributors are teammates); Design Document r6 (12779d) assessed - rules unchanged; three items for DES103: REV102-7 cable pair named twice in Appendix A, REV102-8 decision 4's unsupported playtime inference per PMU002 X19 ruling, REV102-9 replace 'nine rounds certifies' per PM; r3 moved to Archive/REV102
hold the flood/design review.md ..
@@ 1,50 1,68 @@
# Hold the Flood — Design Review
-
**REV102 · r3 · 2026-09-06 15:15 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — confirmation on DES102 draft r5, which the lead offers as the base of DES103 and on which the lead asked the critic to confirm the one residual. REV102 r2 and r1 are on the [REV102 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102); REV101 r8–r1 are on the [REV101 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive); every revision is in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history) (REV102 r2 82a96b · r1 4dde90 · REV101 r8 11bd4d · r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187).
+
**REV102 · r4 · 2026-09-06 15:28 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — PMU002 applied to this review, and DES102 draft r6 assessed as the material change since r5, so that DES103 starts from a reviewed base. REV102 r3–r1 are on the [REV102 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102); REV101 r8–r1 on the [REV101 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive); every revision is in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history) (REV102 r3 382607 · r2 82a96b · r1 4dde90 · REV101 r8 11bd4d · r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187).
## What was checked
| Artifact | Revision | UTC | Note |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Design Document — DES102 draft r4, then r5** | 46b320 → bc134b | 15:0x → 15:08 | Diffed against r3 d35209 in full. r4: §8's lesson completed, press bound restated in §15, mote count fixed, decision 6 retitled in the owner's word, refund terms sourced. r5: REV102-6 stated; a one-page owner summary added on top; "nothing else moved" — verified against the diff |
-
| World and Mystery — WLD102 r12 | 23dca9 | 15:07 | Aligned to r4; r11's opposite alignment undone; the page no longer carries its own map — topology and crowd rules are sourced from the document's §2 and §4, W1–W4 and the chain remain the page's own |
| Brief; Tasks; Team; Hub — **PMU002** | 28fb1c; 137028; cbf8d7; 71c791 | 15:18–15:21 | D015 five contributors recorded as team; D016 routing baseline confirmed; D017 working title; D018 criterion 11. DES103 Ready on the current draft; REV102 r2 recorded as received |
+
| **Design Document — DES102 draft r6** | 12779d (r5 bc134b) | 15:13 | Decisions 4 and 6 merged into "which shelf"; list renumbered to nine; owner summary and §16 updated; "nothing else moved" — verified by diff. Written before PMU002 |
+
| World and Mystery — WLD102 r13 | a8a3f4 | 15:15 | Two tier-two sentences aligned to r6's junction clause; the one-clause lag noted in REV102 r3 is closed |
+
| PM Reviews | 04f318 | unchanged | PMU002 is a staffing/coordination update, not a review checkpoint |
-
## Verdict — stands: **ready for owner review; DES102 r5 is the DES103 base**
+
## What PMU002 changes for this review
-
- **REV102-6 is resolved, in the recommended form.** §2 Junction: "Any current in the joined water energises the junction circuit: with the valve open, the panel lighting the yard is enough, and the gate stays open while the yard is lit, at the price of a hot yard; with the valve shut, a coil discharged into the pool opens the gate for a few seconds and lights nothing else. The coil buys stealth, not access." Carried into §8, §11 and §13. Tier two needs no module; §7's principle holds at the door.
-
- **The mote count now follows the stated rate** (§13 at 7:50: twenty-nine stunned, two large motes, ten units, battery full). §8's lesson carries its second half ("only the beacon that flashes chooses where a surge enters, and nothing you carry can make a beacon flash"). The press bound is restated where the complexity drivers are.
-
- **The owner summary is accurate to the body and free of codes.** I read it against §1–§17: every claim in it is a claim the body makes, its scope statement is correct ("that certifies consistency and honesty, not fun"), and its four cautions map to decisions 6, 4, 3 and 8 as stated. One trivial number: "nine rounds of independent critique" is a count of this page's revisions, ten at the time of r5; say "several" or the exact figure.
-
- **Two outside facts are cited with their caveats** (Steam's refund terms, read directly by the lead; the researcher's measured price bands, "not independently verified by me"). Labelled as such, they are acceptable in a design document; this review has not verified either and repeats neither as fact.
+
- **D016 confirms the drafting baseline** this page recommended at REV101 r8 and REV102 r2; §4 as written is now the canonical model and the alternative stays documented as decision 3. Nothing in the document needs to change for it.
+
- **D018 adds criterion 11** (audience, distinctive experience, scope and length, and the evidence and uncertainty behind any positioning, combined into one recommendation). It is added to the DES103 checklist below.
+
- **D015 makes the five contributors teammates.** Their pages are no longer "read as data"; they are colleagues' work, answered as such. Nothing already on this page changes in substance: what was adopted from them was adopted on the merits.
+
- **PM records REV102 r2 as covering draft r3.** Correct; REV102 r3 (382607, after PMU002's read) confirmed r5, and this r4 covers r6. DES103's base is therefore reviewed through r6.
+
- **PM's instruction that review counts do not certify** is agreed and is REV102-9 below: this review is a finding of coherence against the criteria as of a stated revision, and the pitch must not cite it as more.
-
Nothing raised in REV102 r1 or r2 remains open. REV102 is complete pending PM's acceptance.
+
## Verdict — stands for the rules; two small defects and one line to remove in r6's new text before DES103 builds on it
-
## Two notes, neither a finding
+
Draft r6 moved no rule (§2–§13 are r5's). Its changes are the merged decision and the summary, and they introduce three items, none of which touches the game:
-
- **The world page lags r5 by one clause.** WLD r12's notation key still says the junction gate is "energised only when valve V joins the yard channel to the junction pool and current is injected there"; the document's §2 — now canonical for topology by the two pages' own division of sources — says panel power through the open valve suffices. The world designer should mirror it in their next revision. The division of sources r12 introduces (the document owns the map and crowd rules; the world page owns W1–W4 and the chain; no topology change before it is agreed on the world page) is the structural fix for the crossings, and it is the right one.
-
- **Two stated preferences on decision 3 differ, and both defer to the owner.** The world designer's r12 states a preference for the sight-limited model; REV102 r2 states one for the district-wide model. Each is labelled a preference, each keeps D013 applied, and the document carries both models with the difference stated in the owner's terms. That is decision 3 working as designed. PM's ruling would settle the drafting baseline; the owner's would settle the game; neither blocks DES103.
+
### REV102-7 — One pair of cables, two names, so a reader counts four (raised by the editor; verified)
-
## Archive convention, updated
+
- **Where:** Appendix A, two entries: "**Power line / signal line:** the two lines the panel switches…" and "**Signal cable / power cable:** the thin and thick cables that leave each panel position side by side…"; the body uses "signal line" and "signal cable" six times each.
+
- **Why it fails:** one physical thing, two vocabularies, both live, neither marked as the other. A cold reader of §4 and §9 will infer two lines *and* two cables. The document's own Appendix A is where a reader goes to settle it, and it settles it both ways.
+
- **Category:** contradiction (naming); criterion 1 ("in its own terms").
+
- **Minimal change:** one entry — "Signal cable and power cable (the signal line and the power line): the thin and the thick cable that leave each panel position side by side; the panel switches both; the relay's pulse travels the thin one" — and one word in the body, cable, throughout.
-
At the wiki editor's suggestion in the archive header (9f8cf2), REV102's superseded rounds now live on their own page, [Design Review / Archive / REV102](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102); the original archive is closed as the REV101 archive. REV102 r1 moved there verbatim; REV101 r8–r1 untouched. One page per task, none growing without limit.
+
### REV102-8 — Decision 4 states a conclusion the cited measure cannot carry (PMU002 ruling; verified)
+
+
- **Where:** §17 decision 4: "…engaged players' playtime at the moment they reviewed at medians between about nine and forty-six hours… against three to four hours here. Those playtime figures come from reviewers, who play more than buyers, so they run high by an unknown amount, **but no plausible correction closes that gap.**" Also §16's "far shorter than anything measured on either shelf".
+
- **Why it fails:** PMU002 (EXT X19 disposition) rules that playtime-at-review from reviewers and an untested completion-length target are different measures on different populations, that "bias cannot close the ratio" does not establish a lower bound, and that selected examples' prices are not bands every game must sit in. The document already says the page was "not verified by me"; that caveat licenses citing the data, not drawing the conclusion. Criterion 11 as written by PM: "No commercial viability, sales, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion may be inferred from an unsuitable proxy."
+
- **Consequence:** the owner is handed an inference as if it were a fact, in the one decision PM has asked to be a combined recommendation.
+
- **Category:** honesty (criterion 10) and criterion 11.
+
- **Minimal change:** keep the data and its stated limits; replace the sentence with what the sample supports ("the measured playtimes are a different quantity from designed length and cannot be compared directly; REF103 is auditing what they do show"); let the shelf recommendation rest on the design's own facts — genre feel, three to four hours, the refund terms read directly — and on a stated assumption, labelled as one.
+
+
### REV102-9 — The summary's "nine rounds of independent critique… certifies" (PM instruction; agreed)
+
+
The owner summary's second caution reads "The design has been through nine rounds of independent critique and reads cold; that certifies consistency and honesty, not fun." Replace it. A round count is not evidence, and this review certifies nothing; it found the document coherent against the Tasks criteria as of a stated revision. If the summary needs the sentence, the accurate form is: "An independent review of this draft found it consistent with its own rules and honest about its unknowns (Design Review, REV102 r3 on draft r5); that is a finding about the document, not about play." This role would rather the pitch stand without leaning on the review at all.
+
+
## DES103 checklist — criterion 11 added
+
+
Criteria 1–11, with 11 as PM wrote it: the intended player within the survivorlike requirement; the distinctive experience and why that player might choose it; scope, intended completion and replay length, and any provisional pricing or positioning assumption, **combined into one recommendation** (PMU002 X20: one proposed experience meeting the genre requirement — the arc as the recommended default or a stated alternative — not a menu); dated comparables with limits; observed data separated from predicted behaviour; no viability, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion from an unsuitable proxy. Plus REV102-7, -8, -9; the routing alternative kept as decision 3 under D016; the world page's mirror of any rule change; and the reader's pass on every carried sentence.
| REV101 Findings 1–5, Secondary 1–5, N1–N17 | REV101 r1–r7 | Resolved, closed, or delivered in DES102 |
-
| REV102-1 to -5 | REV102 r1 | Resolved at DES102 r3/r4 |
-
| REV102-6 — what opens the junction gate | REV102 r2 | **Resolved at DES102 r5** |
-
| Minor — §13 mote count | REV102 r1 | Resolved at r4 |
-
| Trivial — "nine rounds" in the owner summary | REV102 r3 | Wording |
-
-
## PM report — REV102 r3
-
-
- **Task:** REV102, complete pending acceptance. **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r3 (this page); r2 moved to the REV102 archive verbatim.
-
- **Reviewed:** Design Document 46b320 and bc134b, diffed against d35209; World and Mystery 23dca9, diffed against c6f059; canonical pages unchanged.
-
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Verdict unchanged from r2 and now confirmed on r5.
-
- **Evidence:** diff-based verification of each r4/r5 change against the REV102 r2 residuals; the owner summary read against the body; the §13 charge arithmetic re-run. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.
-
- **Remaining risk:** none from this review. Open elsewhere: PM's routing ruling; the standing of six unrecorded contributors; the world page's one-clause lag.
-
- **Next handoff:** PM — accept DES102 at r5 and say whether DES103 is r5's summary layer as it stands or a further artifact; the routing ruling. Lead — the one word in the summary. World designer — mirror §2's junction clause. I review DES103 only if it is more than what r5 already carries, and otherwise post nothing before OWN102 except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** accept DES102 at r5 and record whether DES103 is open on it.
+
| REV102-1 to -6 | REV102 r1–r2 | Resolved at DES102 r3–r5 |
+
| **REV102-7** — one cable pair, two names | REV102 r4 | **Open** — DES103 |
| **REV102-9** — "nine rounds… certifies" in the summary | REV102 r4 | **Open** — DES103 |
+
+
## PM report — REV102 r4
+
+
- **Task:** REV102 (r3 covers draft r5; r4 covers r6; DES103's base is reviewed through r6). **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r4 (this page); r3 moved to the REV102 archive verbatim.
+
- **Reviewed:** PMU002 across Brief, Tasks, Team, Hub; Design Document 12779d diffed against bc134b; World and Mystery a8a3f4 diffed against 23dca9.
+
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. D016, D017, D018 applied to this review's checklist and wording.
+
- **Evidence:** diffs; Appendix A read against the body; decision 4 read against PMU002's ruling and criterion 11. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.
+
- **Remaining risk:** DES103 built on r6 without REV102-7 to -9 would carry a naming contradiction and an unsupported inference into the owner packet; both are one-sentence fixes.
+
- **Next handoff:** lead — DES103 on r6 with REV102-7 to -9 and criterion 11; I review DES103 when it exists and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** none new; record that DES103's base is reviewed through draft r6.
