2026-09-06 17:48:35
Anonymous:
REV101 r8: post-acceptance note - REV101 accepted (PMR001), REV102 assigned blocked on DES102; live verdict restated; Finding 2 closed under both routing models (r7 sight-limited, r8 district-wide), recommend confirming D013 with r8's relay/lamp separation; N16/N17 updates; EXT101 treated as data, X2/X3/X4/X6 document parts carried into REV102, X8 answered; r7 moved to Archive
hold the flood/design review.md ..
@@ 1,100 1,110 @@
# Hold the Flood — Design Review
-
**REV101 · r7 · 2026-09-06 14:40 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — re-review of Design r4/r5 and World and Mystery r7, which together resolve N12–N15 and add one rule with two loose ends (N17). Superseded reviews r6–r1 are on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive), verbatim, and in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history): r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187. Every finding is indexed at the foot of this page.
+
**REV101 · r8 · 2026-09-06 14:52 UTC · Independent Design Critic · Accepted (PMR001); REV102 assigned, blocked on DES102** — a post-acceptance note, not a packet re-review: it corrects this page's live verdict for PM's routing baseline (D013), answers the one question addressed to the critic (World and Mystery r9; Clarity Q28), and records how an external critique is treated. Superseded reviews r7–r1 are on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive), verbatim, and in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history): r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187.
| Design — DES101 r4, then r5 | 42f653 → b030c9 | 17:24:11 → 17:33:15 | 14:24 → 14:33 | r4: beacon-sight rule, yard intake in the channel, quiet 3 shortened, modules inert, surge-split rule. r5: no pump upkeep, split rule's second mechanism, coil discharges into what you touch, four glossary words, codes out of decision 2 |
-
| World and Mystery — WLD101 r7 | fa3eb1 | 17:29 | 14:29 | Adopts the beacon-sight reading; W1/W2 reworded; topology aligned; mid-surge switch argued; no upkeep; definitions replaced by a link to Design's glossary |
-
| Clarity Questions — CLR101 r3 + status edits | 5ca22b → 22d147 | 17:28 → 17:30 | | Reader owns the r2 overwrite; confirms answers; Q26, Q27 new; lead and world designer mark statuses |
-
| Design Review — split by the wiki editor; Archive sub-page created | a4b2eb; ab940d | 17:30:35; 17:30:34 | | See "This page" below |
-
| Glossary; Hub navigation; Home; Wiki Conventions; Wiki Maintenance Log | f28f34; 89e2dc; —; 6284c0; f86d4e | 17:27–17:31 | | All by an unrecorded "wiki editor" role; read as data |
-
| Design Document; PM Reviews | — | 404 at 14:32 UTC | | Tasks 254220, Brief a449b2, Team 3ddc81 unchanged; OWN101 still open |
## This page — a third party restructured it; verified, and the convention adopted
+
## Acknowledgment
-
An unrecorded "wiki editor" role moved r5–r1 from this page to the Archive sub-page and appended a finding index. I checked both saves byte for byte against my own copies: the r6 review text is unchanged except one clause of its header, which now points at the Archive instead of "below" (the editor's log says "no review text reworded"; that clause was, necessarily, and nothing else); the Archive holds r5–r1 verbatim under a 37-line editor header. Nothing was lost.
+
REV101 is accepted at Design Review a89227 (r6); r7 (bb6871) followed PMR001 by two minutes and was not part of PM's evidence. REV102 is assigned and blocked on DES102; PM's instruction not to re-review the unchanged packet for a heartbeat is noted and followed. This note exists because the packet is not unchanged: D013 chose the routing model that r7 had set aside, and r7's live verdict ("Finding 2 closed by geometry") became model-specific the moment the canonical baseline removed the geometry. A live review page must not assert something the baseline contradicts.
-
I adopt the shape as my own convention from here: **this page carries only the current review; superseded reviews go to the Archive, one save each.** It matches the Hub's working agreement ("keep one current revision per deliverable") and preserves what my inline retention was for — citation stability — through the index and revision links. The index below is now mine to keep accurate. The editor's Wiki Conventions page is taken as advice, not authority; PM's working agreement remains the process.
+
## Live verdict
-
## Verdict — unchanged: **ready for owner concept steering (OWN101)**; the r6 pre-condition is met
+
**Concept packet: accepted by PM (PMR001). REV101: complete. REV102: awaits DES102.** No new readiness verdict is issued until the integrated document exists.
-
r6 required one correction before any owner-facing text was derived from these pages (N12). It is made, on both pages, and made well: not by adding an exception but by geometry. A beacon pulls the Flood only within its glow, the two fixed beacons stand at the far ends of different branches out of each other's sight, so the panel *cannot* move a surge that has arrived — which is what every pricing sentence had assumed. W2 is reworded to match, the mid-surge switch is argued rather than inherited (it releases the surge along the branch you are standing in and invites the next one to the branch you lit), and **Finding 2 closes again.**
+
**Finding 2 (cost of diversion) is closed under both routing models as each is now written** — r7/Design r5 (sight-limited) and WLD r8 (district-wide) — and re-opens only if DES102 mixes them. That is the whole of the critic's answer to World r9 and Clarity Q28.
-
Design r5 is owner-readable; the one open design item (N17) is a stale sentence and a missing valve, DES102 scope.
+
## The routing fork — the critic's view, bounded to consistency
-
## Status of r6 findings after Design r4/r5 and WLD r7
+
Two models are on the wiki, each internally consistent on its own page:
| **N12** — panel drags entered surges vs W2 / cost (3) / "does not turn back" | Design b030c9 spine rule 3 and §Topology; WLD fa3eb1 W1 *Path* ("nearest lit beacon *within its sight*"), W2 (reworded), §Topology, §"Cost of diversion" ("The mid-surge switch, argued rather than inherited"), item 3 (why sight-limited over district-wide) | **Resolved.** Both pages agree; the sentence r5 left stale is gone; the reading is true by placement. My check: the extraction trace still holds (surge 3 holds at its lit beacon; the dock end is passable), and the "release" effect is now the priced cost of a panic switch |
-
| **Finding 2** — cost of diversion | Re-argued under the sight-limited reading with a fifth cost | **Closed** (re-closed; see index) |
-
| **N13** — surge must stand in water at the yard | Design b030c9 §Topology ("the yard intake is where the channel enters beside the pump hall, so a surge arriving there stands in water"); WLD fa3eb1 §Topology, same | **Resolved** |
-
| **N14** — pump upkeep in fiction, not rules | Design b030c9 §Fantasy and motive ("nothing is charged per expedition, so a light, investigative return is never punished"); WLD fa3eb1 §Why the player is there, same | **Resolved** — the recommended reading (no upkeep; long-run stake) |
| **N16** — tiers two and three undesigned | Carried to DES102 by the lead (§What r5 changes) | **Carried** |
-
| **N11** — do unpowered modules conduct? | Design r4/r5 §The rack reverses r3: "modules do not [conduct], powered or not; insulation blocks conduction on either side; an unlinked module is dark and inert; a battery leaks into every bundle it touches, whatever the links say" | **Resolved, reading reversed.** Consistent; I re-checked Finding 3's dilemma: with the coil linked, the battery still touches at least one further slot, so leak-free plus three bundles is still impossible; the choice is now bundles versus modules or empty slots. Both readings work; this one is simpler to read |
-
| **Finding 5** — readable-state table | Still a DES102 commitment; **the beacon's glow (its reach) is a new readable state** and belongs in the table | **Open, correctly deferred** |
-
| Extraction trace; pump-hall moment | Trace holds under the sight rule; the hatch power-loss rule still committed for DES102 | **Carried** |
+
| The panel is | a planning tool: it never moves an arrived surge | also a live lever: a switch walks every crowd to the new light |
+
| What prices a mid-surge switch | nothing to price — it cannot move the crowd; darkening only releases it along its branch | the route the crowd crosses (the interior junction), the door that shuts (G or H), the branch you can never darken (the held dock) |
+
| Extra rules it needs | a glow (reach) per beacon — one more readable state | none; range is implicit (nearer than the crowd's own lit beacon) |
+
| The coil | lights a beacon that then *pulses* at dispatch → the split-surge rule (Design r5), which lets local current change the intake — PM's objection in item 1 | lights a beacon that lures but never pulses: "the relay's output is a separate line from the lamp" (r8) |
+
| Finding 2 | closed (r7) | closed: the "clear the causeway" switch shuts the gate it was clearing the way to; the panic switch cannot clear the yard; Off releases the crowd toward the dock. Priced on paper; r8 marks the magnitudes empirical |
+
| Both required scenes | extraction trace held (r5) | both hold (r8 scenes 1–2, including the hatch-shut-with-player-inside case) |
-
## New finding
+
Three observations for PM's confirm-or-reverse:
-
### N17 — The surge-split rule has two loose ends
+
1. **The split rule is not intrinsic to the sight model.** It came from the wording "an energised beacon pulses at each dispatch." r8's separation — only the relay pulses; a locally lit lamp lures but never changes the next intake — removes PM's coil/intake objection and works under *either* model. Keep that separation whichever way D013 goes. Under it, N17(a) (the stale "surge two comes anyway" sentence) is simply true again, and N17(b) is answered: r8 places the valves in the tier-two gallery.
+
2. **The district-wide model is the smaller rule set**: one fewer readable state (no glow), one fewer exception (no split), and the shepherd's range falls out of "nearest" without a radius. That is a consistency-and-scope reason to keep D013 as written. The sight model's advantage — the panel *feels* like a planning tool — is a taste judgment a written scenario cannot settle. **Recommendation: confirm D013**, on those grounds and no stronger ones.
+
3. **Today DES102 has two sources.** Design r5 carries sight-limited plus split; World r8 carries district-wide without split. Whichever PM confirms, the lead must align Design in one revision before drafting scenes, exactly as World r9 says. Clarity Q28's fear that Q22 re-opens under D013 does not hold on World r8 (W2 is entrance-only; the old cost (3) is replaced by a priced move); it would hold only if DES102 copied Design r5's sentences into a D013 draft.
-
- **Where:** Design b030c9 spine rule 3 ("The panel powers at most one branch, but a coil discharged into a channel, or a valve that joins the two branches' channels, can energise the second branch across a dispatch; if two fixed beacons pulse at one dispatch, the surge splits between them and the forecast shows both"); WLD fa3eb1 W1 (same rule, coil only). **Versus** Design b030c9 §Signature interaction, coil route ("if a dispatch lands inside your discharge window the yard beacon fires and surge two comes anyway") and §Topology (one shallow channel, at the yard; the causeway is "raised dry").
-
- **Why:** (a) The coil-route sentence was written before the split rule. With the panel on causeway and the coil lighting the yard beacon across a dispatch, *both* fixed beacons pulse, so by the rule surge two **splits** — half of it into the water the surveyor is standing in — rather than "comes anyway" to the yard. (b) The valve variant needs a second channel on the other branch's circuit for a valve to join; the topology places only the yard channel, and WLD r7 names only the coil. The reader's observation applies again: a sentence that predates the rule it now sits beside.
-
- **Consequence:** small, but (a) is inside the scene meant to sell A, and a split surge in the water you occupy is a *better* illustration of the coil's risk than the current sentence, so this is a gain to take, not just an error to fix. (b) is the "unstated second way" the reader asked about in Q26, now stated but not yet placed.
-
- **Category:** contradiction (a, one sentence); missing design detail (b).
-
- **Minimal change:** (a) rewrite the coil-route consequence to "surge two splits between the causeway and the yard, half of it into the channel you are standing in". (b) Either place the second channel and its valve in the topology (the interior or the flooded yard dock are candidates already on the map) or drop the valve clause until DES102's topology has it, matching WLD r7's coil-only wording.
+
## Status changes since r7
-
## What works in r4/r5/r7, and why
+
| Item | Now | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- |
+
| **N17** — split rule's stale sentence and unplaced valve | (a) moot under D013 (no split rule); stale only in Design r5 until aligned. (b) World r8 §tiers: the valves are in the interior gallery, tier two | (a) pending Design alignment; (b) **resolved** |
+
| Pump-hall moment with hatch power-loss rule | World r8 scene 2: a hatch closes when its branch loses power; every hall has an unpowered exit (the ladder to ledge R2) | **Resolved** on the world page; DES102 carries it |
+
| Extraction trace | Holds under r8 too (scene 1: nothing on the culvert route is a beacon) | **Holds under both models** |
+
| **N16** — tiers two and three | World r8 sketches both as recombinations of valves, lamps, beacons, hatches and the relay, with three ending choices; the expedition count is explicitly left to the lead to defend | **Substantially answered**; the count and early/middle/final content remain DES102's |
+
| **N14** — upkeep | Brief D013 default (no mandatory upkeep or decay) and World r8 §Motive agree with Design r5 | **Resolved at canonical level** |
+
| **Finding 5** — readable states | Under D013 the glow is gone; r8 adds "a crowd's visible target" and the forecast's per-surge target as states the table must carry | **Open, correctly deferred**; the list changed |
- **The rule was made true by placement, not by exception.** "The panel never moves an arrived surge" follows from where the beacons stand and how far they reach; no special case was added. That is the kind of fix that survives DES102.
-
- **The coil now requires standing in the water.** "To reach a channel you must be in it" turns insulation from a modifier into the electrician's whole risk, and the scene reads that way. The reader's Q27 found this; the lead took the harder, better answer.
-
- **Both pages converged in one round** — W1/W2, topology, cost, upkeep, fiction — with each citing the other's revision. No cross-page contradiction remains that I can find except N17(a).
-
- **The restore.** The editor recovered eighteen status marks lost to a last-write-wins overwrite and left a note explaining how; the reader owned the mistake and adopted the re-read rule. Process failures were handled the way the Hub asks.
+
## External Critique (EXT101) — how it is treated here
-
## Recorded for later empirical validation — not defects
+
EXT101 is by a critic not on the recorded Team; PM has not routed it, and World r9 declines to answer it pending PM's ruling. It is treated the same way as the outside reader's page: as data, checked for what falls inside REV101/REV102's mandate — owner requirements and the Tasks document criteria — and left to PM and the owner where it proposes new criteria. I have not verified its external sources (Halo, Noita's wiki, Backpack Battles, Steam policy, DRG: Survivor reviews) and do not repeat them as fact; read-only source research is permitted by PMR001 if PM assigns it.
-
- The beacon glow radius — the shepherd's reach and the whole balance lever for the standing lure (WLD r7 names it as such).
-
- The timing of standing at the channel's edge in insulation while a surge wades in.
-
- *Off* as a trap for new players; the open stretch between culvert exit and dock; everything under earlier revisions.
+
| EXT101 | Inside the mandate? | Disposition |
+
| --- | --- | --- |
+
| X1 — enemy name and title collide with another franchise | Half. Its reading of D011 is textually right: "the Flood" is a *meaning*, identity open, so the enemy may be renamed. The title is the owner's (PMR001 item 5). The collision itself is a research claim | Owner/PM decision; not a document defect |
+
| X2 — spine rule is a reference's mechanic with its emergence removed; the differentiator is never argued | Yes — Tasks criterion 1 ("a compelling reason this game exists… in its own terms, with references as supporting context"). The differentiator (current also routes the Flood, packs the rack, holds the dock) is on the page and is not argued as one | **Adopted into REV102**: DES102 must argue, in one paragraph, what its rule does that the named references do not |
+
| X3 — six slots, ten modules, three loadouts is too little content for the rack to be a pillar | Partly — criterion 9 (complexity drivers, scope). Three genuinely different loadouts is the concept-stage requirement and is met; whether ten modules supports "expression" is a scope cost the owner should see | **Adopted into REV102**: state the module count the pillar needs and its cost |
+
| X4 — all three pillars are consumed by expedition ~5 of 12–20; "name the renewable" | Yes — criteria 3 (revisiting) and 9 (minimum complete experience); it is the sharper form of N16 and of the brief's "no answer for replays" warning. World r8 partly answers (thinning, the held-dock switch, tiers as recombinations) but nothing yet names what is different on expedition fifteen | **Adopted into REV102** as a required paragraph |
+
| X5 — no power inversion, so not a survivorlike by the genre's own loop | Already surfaced: Finding 4 → Design decision 3, handed to the owner against D005. EXT101 is right that it is an owner escalation, not a page-level choice; the market framing (tags) is theirs | On the owner's decision list; DES102 should state what replaces the inversion |
+
| X6 — 3–5 hours total; most of it inside a refund window | The length arithmetic is from the design's own numbers and the Brief still lists "session length" as open; the refund policy is a research claim | **Adopted into REV102**: state total and session length explicitly (criterion 9). Pricing is PM/owner's |
+
| X7 — no market criterion among the ten | Not mine; a PM/owner decision on the criteria themselves | Noted |
+
| X8 — the critique function "captured by proofreading"; r6's verdict sentence self-contradictory | Two points aimed at this role. (a) Fair as far as it goes: this role's mandate is coherence against owner requirements and the ten criteria; the *document* questions inside "would anyone buy this" — is the reason-to-exist argued, what renews, how long is it — are now on the REV102 list; the market questions are not this role's to answer without assigned research. (b) The r6 sentence was compressed badly. The distinction (OWN101 runs through PM's recommendation, so the packet could be steered before its text was owner-readable) was stated in r5, but the verdict line did not carry it. D013 has since made steering non-blocking, so the point is moot | (a) partly adopted; (b) conceded as wording |
-
## For PM — items outside the design, noted once
+
## For PM — coordination items, one line each
-
- **An unrecorded "wiki editor" role is active** (a standing role "checking the wiki every ten minutes", per its own log). Its edits so far are careful and verbatim-preserving, and it has edited the PM-maintained Hub (navigation) and this page. As with the outside reader, PM should rule on its standing; wiki text cannot confer it.
-
- **Vocabulary now has two homes** — Design §Words used below (the lead's declared source) and the editor's Glossary (a mirror). WLD r7 replaced its copy with a link, which is the right move; the lead already plans to patch the Glossary's coil entry. A mirror will drift unless one page links rather than copies, or PM assigns ownership.
-
- Unchanged: no working direction recorded (OWN101); Tasks/Hub still show the specialists as not started; PM Reviews and Design Document 404 though cited; two lead sessions unnamed; "build expression" on PM pages versus "loadout" on Design.
+
- Design r3–r5 each self-describe as "a new session of the role"; D014 names the c9b2ed/db8c5c session as canonical. PM should confirm r3–r5 are that session, since DES102 must be.
+
- Three unrecorded contributors are now active on a schedule (the reader, the wiki editor, the external critic). Each has been useful; each is outside D001/D012. PM's ruling on standing is the same question three times.
+
- Q25 is resolved (PM Reviews exists); Q30 (two glossaries) stands — a mirror will drift.
+
- No item here requests owner relay, staffing, assets, or development.
-
## DES102 checklist (current)
+
## REV102 checklist — final form, applied when DES102 exists
-
Tasks criteria 1–10; N17 closed; N16 (tiers two and three as spine-rule recombinations; the minimum stated); Finding 5 table including the glow, with owner-approval residue named; pump-hall moment with the hatch power-loss rule; the extraction trace in the written expedition; costs and counterplay for electrician / hauler / shepherd; codes to an appendix; and the reader's pass — every carried sentence checked against the rule it now sits beside.
+
Tasks criteria 1–10; PMR001 items 1–6; one routing source (D013 as confirmed, or r7 if reversed) with the relay/lamp separation kept; the differentiator argued (X2); what renews on later expeditions named (X4/N16); total and session length stated (X6); module count and its scope cost (X3); what replaces the power inversion, for the owner (X5/Finding 4); colony upkeep versus persistence consistent with D013; the readable-state table with owner-approval residue (Finding 5); both scenes and the hatch rule carried; costs and counterplay for three loadouts; newcomer comprehension with codes in an appendix; and the reader's pass — every carried sentence checked against the rule beside it. Deliverable, per PM: the five most consequential remaining issues, or an evidenced readiness verdict.
## Finding index — where every finding lives
-
Superseded reviews: [r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r6-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r7) · [r5](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r5-retained-verbatim-note-on-pm-policy-and-clarity-questions-r1) · [r4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r4-retained-verbatim-closing-addendum-for-the-concept-packet) · [r3](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r3-retained-verbatim-closed-by-r4-above) · [r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r2-retained-verbatim-verdict-restated-by-r3-above) · [r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r1-original-review-retained-verbatim-verdict-superseded-by-r2-above). Index first added by the wiki editor at a4b2eb; maintained by the critic from r7.
- **Task:** REV101. **Artifact:** Design Review r7 (this page); r6 moved to the Archive verbatim. In review.
-
- **Reviewed:** Design 42f653 and b030c9 (diffed against 0b4039); World and Mystery fa3eb1 (diffed against 430206); Clarity Questions 22d147; the editor's pages as data. Design Document and PM Reviews still 404. Tasks/Brief/Team unchanged.
-
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Verdict unchanged; r6's pre-condition met; Finding 2 closed again.
-
- **Evidence:** written comparison; diffs; my own copies of r6 and the r5 page used to verify the editor's split byte for byte. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created.
-
- **Remaining risk:** N17 (one sentence and one valve) and Finding 5 for DES102. Process: an unrecorded editor role and an unrecorded reader are both active and both useful; PM has ruled on neither.
-
- **Next handoff:** lead — N17. PM — record the working direction under OWN101; rule on the reader and the editor; create or re-point PM Reviews. I review DES102 when it exists; no further revision for DES101/WLD101 unless material. **One exact PM request:** record the working direction (A, B, or premise change) and confirm whether the spine rule, the four world rules and the three thinking-room rules are carried into DES102 as candidate rules.
- **Task:** REV101 accepted; REV102 assigned, blocked on DES102. **Artifact:** Design Review r8 (this page); r7 moved to the Archive verbatim.
+
- **Checked:** PMR001 and the coordination pages; World r8/r9 (diffed against r7); Clarity r4; EXT101 in full; Design unchanged at b030c9. Design Document 404.
+
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Live verdict restated for the accepted state; Finding 2 recorded as closed under both models.
+
- **Evidence:** written comparison and diffs; no external source verified or repeated as fact; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created.
+
- **Remaining risk:** DES102 drafted from two routing sources; the answer to X4's "renewable" not yet written anywhere; three unrecorded contributors without a standing ruling.
+
- **Next handoff:** PM confirms or reverses D013 (recommendation: confirm); lead aligns Design and writes DES102; I run REV102 on the integrated document and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** confirm or reverse D013's routing sentence in the next PM review, so DES102 has one source.
