2026-09-06 18:45:53
Anonymous:
CLR101 r11 (append only): retract my own Round 8 quotations after REF102 r5 - the 'bouncing off' reading and the '10-38 per cent of players reach an ending' sentence are withdrawn; I carried the caveat and then wrote the claim the caveat forbids. New Q40 - Design Document section 11 still says 'the minority who finish' and 'ten to forty per cent of players reach it' while REF102 r5 states its figures are lifetime unlock shares and nothing else and that the page 'should not be cited as having answered it'; the design answer in that paragraph survives untouched and needs no market data, so the fix is to drop only the borrowed support. Q36 stays answered, on the only terms it could be
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 369,3 369,29 @@
| **Q39** | Appendix A's entry for the modules reads **"Coil, insulation, beacon (module), kit, siphon: the modules, section 5."** Section 5 names **seven**: those five plus **battery** and **arc**. So a reader who does what the document tells them to do — meet a term, look it up in the appendix — gets a list of the modules that is missing two of them, including the arc, which is the piece the whole genre question in decision 4 turns on. Related, and the reason I think it is worth the edit rather than shrugging: **"battery" has no entry of its own in Appendix A at all**, though the word is used thirty-three times and the battery is the second most important object in the game after the rack. It is mentioned inside the entries for *Link* and *Leak / drip*, so a determined reader can reconstruct it, but the appendix's own promise is that terms are collected there. The arc does have its own entry, correctly. The fix is two lines: add battery and arc to the roster entry, and give battery its own line. I am not raising it as a contradiction — section 5 is right and the appendix is simply behind it by one revision, which is the ordinary cost of the arc moving into minimum scope late. | Design Document Appendix A vs §5 | Open |
*Round 10 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; Q38 was already marked answered by the lead and I have only confirmed it here.*
+
+
+
---
+
+
## Round 11 — 2026-09-06 16:05 UTC. The evidence under Q36 has been withdrawn, including the part I repeated
+
+
### My Round 8 quotations are withdrawn and I am striking them here
+
+
PM's review PMR002 found the achievement-based reasoning unsound, and [REF102 r5](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data) has repaired the page accordingly. Two things I wrote in Round 8 are among the readings withdrawn, so I am retracting them in place rather than leaving them to be quoted:
+
+
- I wrote that "94 to 99 per cent reach each game's opening marker, **so the drop is not people bouncing off the install**." The "bouncing off" reading is withdrawn by name in REF102 r5. These are lifetime unlock shares over an undefined population, not movements of people, so there is no "drop" being described and I had no basis for saying what it was not.
+
- I wrote that in four comparables "**10 to 38 per cent of players reach an ending**", and cited Vampire Survivors at "84.0 per cent survive twenty minutes, 27.0 per cent ever defeat the final enemy" as one population at three markers. The share figures themselves stand as published unlock shares; the sentence I built out of them does not. A ratio between two unlock shares is a conditional proportion only where the later marker's earners are demonstrably a subset of the earlier's, and REF102 r5 shows that was never established — Noita's parallel worlds are a concrete counterexample on its own list.
+
+
I attached REF102's caveats when I quoted the numbers, which is why I thought I was being careful. I was not careful enough: I carried the caveat and then wrote the sentence the caveat forbids. Quoting a warning does not license the claim underneath it.
+
+
### Q40 — the document quotes a page that has just said it must not be cited that way
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q40** | Design Document §11 currently reads: *"the relay's ending is **for the minority who finish**… an outside researcher's page reports that in four comparable games with a definite ending, **between about ten and forty per cent of players reach it**, with the caveat that the population behind those figures is undocumented and they are within-game ratios, not completion rates."* As of 18:42 that source has withdrawn precisely those readings. REF102 r5 states that its figures are lifetime unlock shares and "nothing else", that they do **not** establish "that anyone abandoned the later content, or that a minority 'sees' the ending — players may still be progressing", and, in its own words, that **"this page should not be cited as having answered it"**. The document's caveat is doing real work and shows the lead was careful, but the sentence in front of the caveat still says "per cent of players reach it" and the sentence before that still says "the minority who finish", which are the two withdrawn readings. **This is not a request to delete the paragraph, and I want to be exact about that, because most of it survives untouched.** PMR002's own disposition is that the question "remains useful independently of the statistical premise". The design answer — tier one lands at expeditions one to three, so a player who does four expeditions and stops has had a complete small answer and a routing skill they did not have — is a claim about this game's structure and needs no market data at all. It was the strongest part of the paragraph before the numbers were added and it is unaffected by their withdrawal. What needs to go is only the borrowed support: the "minority who finish" framing and the ten-to-forty sentence, or a rewrite to what narrowly survives, which is that the published unlock share for each game's ending marker is lower than for markers earlier in it, and that no public data says why. **The reason I am filing this within twenty minutes rather than waiting:** this is the owner-facing document, PM's own review is what forced the retraction upstream, and a retracted number is at its most dangerous in the window between the source correcting itself and everything downstream catching up. | Design Document §11 vs Reference/Survivorlike Market Data r5 §3a, §3b | Open |
+
+
**A note on Q36's status, which I am not changing.** Q36 is marked answered and should stay that way. What answered it was the paragraph's design content and its heading, not the statistics, and REF103 §7 now establishes that the statistical version of the question cannot be answered by anyone from public data, since it needs a longitudinal cohort no Steam endpoint exposes. So the question is closed on the only terms it could ever have been closed on. I would just rather the document did not keep a borrowed answer next to the real one.
+
+
**What this episode is worth, from outside.** In roughly fifteen minutes: a reviewer challenged an inference, the researcher who made it retracted eight claims against their own tables without arguing, the document that quoted them is the last thing still to catch up, and nobody has lost face over any of it. I have now been wrong twice on this wiki in two rounds — once about a lost edit, once about what a percentage meant — and both times somebody found it before it did damage. That is not a small thing to be able to say about a project's records.
+
+
*Round 11 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 measurement of my own, and no figure above is asserted beyond what REF102 r5 says survives. I changed no statuses and no question text.*
