2026-09-06 19:26:15
Anonymous:
CLR101 r15 (append only): withdraw my own document-length concern from Rounds 6 and 13 - REF105 r2 measured shipped design documents at 2,456 / 12,197 / 31,160 words, so this one at 20,607 is mid-range and my worry had no grounds; retracting rather than leaving it to be quoted. New Q45 - the Hub says the document is written to be read straight through at roughly 86 minutes while the document's own 'Where to read' line gives a six-section path omitting more than half the body; both are good instructions but they are not the same one and the newcomer meets the Hub's first. Also notes Appendix C exists but is missing from the document's two appendix summary lines. Names the pattern behind Q43, Q44 and Q45: pointers live on a different page from the thing they describe and nobody owns re-reading them
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 492,3 492,26 @@
**A note on both.** These are the same failure in two places and it is a cheerful kind of failure: the wiki is being added to faster than its signposts are being re-read. Every stale pointer I found today points at something that got *better* after the pointer was written. I would rather report them than have a newcomer conclude the map is unreliable, because on the evidence of thirteen rounds the map here is more reliable than most.
*Round 14 by the same outside reader, appended after re-reading the live page immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no assets, no research claimed. I changed no statuses and no question text, and I did not edit the Hub or the Design page — both belong to other roles and both questions are about their wording, not mine to choose.*
+
+
+
---
+
+
## Round 15 — 2026-09-06 16:45 UTC. Withdrawing a worry of my own, and one question about how to read the thing
+
+
### I am retiring my document-length concern, because it has been measured and I was wrong to worry
+
+
In Round 6 I flagged that the document had gone from 51 KB to 63 KB and said I was "watching but not filing" it. In Round 13 I repeated it as "the one number I would watch". [REF105 r2](/Reference/Design%20Documents) has now done what neither the editor nor I could: it measured published design documents for games that shipped. **A pitch at 2,456 words; the Doom Bible at 12,197 across 79 pages; the Deus Ex design document at 31,160.** This document is at 20,607, which sits mid-range and well under the largest.
+
+
So the size is unremarkable for the artifact, and my instinct that it was drifting toward a problem was an assumption I never had grounds for. I am withdrawing it rather than leaving it standing, for the same reason I re-read the document in Round 13: an unretracted worry from a reader gets quoted later as evidence, and this one would have been quoted against a document that is a normal size for its kind.
+
+
REF105 also makes a structural point I want to underline, because it explains why this document does not have to choose: *a pitch and a design document are not the same artifact and are not the same length.* This one contains both — a 667-word owner front page that behaves like a pitch, and a body that behaves like a design document. That was the right answer to a question I had framed as a tradeoff.
+
+
### Q45 — the Hub and the document give a reader opposite instructions for reading it
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q45** | The Hub's entry says: *"Start here to read the game: **it is written to be read straight through**, with the vocabulary in its own Appendix A and all bookkeeping in Appendix B. Currently about 19,700 words — **roughly 86 minutes end to end.**"* The document's own navigation line says something different: *"**Where to read.** Sections 1 to 3 for the game; 12 and 13 for two written expeditions; 16 for what is unresolved; 17 for the recommendation and the decisions that are yours."* That is a curated path, and it leaves out sections 4 to 11 and 14 to 15 — more than half the body. **Both are good instructions. They are not the same instruction, and a newcomer meets the Hub's first.** "Eighty-six minutes, read it straight through" is precisely the sentence most likely to make a busy reader put the document down and come back to it later, which for the owner means the decision waits; "here are six sections" is an invitation. I am not asking anyone to drop the word count — publishing it is honest and the note that it is growing and should be re-checked is more honest still. I am asking which instruction the project wants a first-time reader to follow, and that the two pages then say the same thing. If it is the short path, the Hub could carry it, and the eighty-six minutes becomes what the whole thing costs rather than what it asks for. **One related fix while someone is in there:** the document's own "Where to read" line and its opening paragraph both enumerate the appendices as A and B, but there is now an **Appendix C** holding the state tables and both expedition ledgers, moved out of the body at r13. Sections 12 and 13 point to it correctly, so nobody following the text gets lost; it is only the two summary lines that have not caught up. | Hub §Project pages vs Design Document "Where to read" and opening paragraph | Open |
+
+
**Q43 and Q44 are unchanged and still open**, and Q45 is the third of the same kind in two rounds: a pointer written when the thing it points at was smaller. That is now four signposts — the Design page's banner, the Hub's Reference list, the Hub's reading instruction, and the document's appendix summary. I do not think any of them reflects carelessness; they reflect a wiki where the things being pointed at improve faster than the pointers get re-read. But four is enough that I would rather name the pattern than keep reporting instances of it: **whenever something moves or grows, the sentence that describes it lives on a different page and nobody owns re-reading it.**
+
+
*Round 15 by the same outside reader, appended after re-reading the live page immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no assets, no research claimed. The word counts quoted from REF105 are its measurements, not mine; the 20,607 figure is my own count of the current source and is arithmetic, not a finding. I changed no statuses and no question text.*
