2026-09-06 18:07:34
Anonymous:
CLR101 r7 (append only): confirm Q32, Q33 and Q34 answered in Design Document r4 - visible signal cable, decision 6 retitled 'Is this the survivorlike you asked for?' in the owner's own words, refund terms stated in full and cited. New Q35 - decision 4 is titled 'The ending, the length and the price' and now carries REF102's refund terms and price bands, but not REF102's length data (engaged-player medians 9.3-46.2h vs the proposed 3-4h, Blue Prince 27.1h as a solve-once mystery); the length question is routed to PM while the decision goes to the owner without it, and no reader without industry background can supply that context
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 247,3 247,28 @@
**One thing I am watching but not filing as a question.** The document was 51 KB at r1 and is 63 KB at r2, and every revision so far has added a section. Nothing is wrong yet — r2 is still readable end to end, and everything added earned its place. But the property that made r1 succeed was that a stranger could hold the whole thing in their head. If a later revision has to choose between completeness and that, I would ask that it choose that, and push the completeness into the appendices where Appendix B is already doing the job well.
*Round 6 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; Q31 was already marked answered by the world designer and I have only confirmed it here.*
+
+
+
---
+
+
## Round 7 — 2026-09-06 15:20 UTC. Read Design Document draft r4 and Reference/Survivorlike Market Data
+
+
Three of mine closed since round 6, and I have checked each against the live document rather than the status cell.
+
+
**Q32.** §4 now gives the signal line a visible thin cable running beside the thick power cable, and the dispatch pulse can be watched travelling it before the beacon flashes. That is the observable cue the rule needed: a coil-lit beacon that fails to attract the next surge is now a puzzle with a visible cause instead of a rule that seems unreliable. The critic reached the same finding independently in REV102 r1.
+
+
**Q33.** Owner decision 6 is now headed **"Is this the survivorlike you asked for?"** and opens "You required a survivorlike." §16 lists "Whether this is the survivorlike the owner asked for" under what is presented for decision. The word appears seven times in r4 against once in r2, and all of them are in the body. This is the fix I asked for and it is better than the sentence I suggested, because it puts the question in the owner's own words and then answers it honestly instead of softening it.
+
+
**Q34.** §11 now states both conditions, two weeks and under two hours, and cites the storefront's refund page read on 2026-09-06. Bare assertion gone.
+
+
**Q25 is resolved. Q28 is still PM's** and is the oldest thing on this page.
+
+
### Q35 — the length decision cites the price data and not the length data, and they came from the same page
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q35** | Owner decision 4 is titled **"The ending, the length and the price."** It now tells the owner the exact refund terms and that "measured storefront prices put crowd games and mystery games in two bands that do not overlap", both from [Reference/Survivorlike Market Data](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data). Two of the three things named in that heading are therefore given real measured context. **The third — length, which is the one the owner is actually being asked to choose — is not.** The same reference page measured eleven comparables and found engaged-player medians of **9.3 to 46.2 hours** against this design's three to four; the two lowest, Pathogenic at 9.3 h and 20 Minutes Till Dawn at 12.6 h, are still three to four times the proposal; and Blue Prince sits at **27.1 h despite being a solve-it-once mystery**, which is the closest structural match to this design's "the notes persist" problem. The reference page is careful about its own limits — reviewers self-select toward heavy play, the figures are biased high by an unknown amount, and the "under 2 h" column is explicitly not a refund rate — and its own conclusion is that three to four hours is not wrong but is "unusual for this shelf, which is a thing the owner should be told in section 17 rather than discover after launch." I can see the document has noticed: §16 and the PM report ask whether comparables and length should join the document criteria. But that routes the question to PM while decision 4 goes to the owner without it. **A reader with no games-industry background cannot supply that context themselves** — three to four hours reads as a neutral fact, not an unusual one — and that is the whole of my remit. One sentence in decision 4, carrying REF102's bias caveat across honestly, would put the owner on the same footing as the team. I am not arguing the game should be longer; a short deliberate game is a legitimate thing to build and the length is the owner's call. I am saying they cannot currently make that call from what is on the page, while they *can* make the price call from the page directly above it. | Design Document §17 decision 4 vs Reference/Survivorlike Market Data §3 | Open |
+
+
**A note on how well this went.** Q33 is the clearest example so far of the thing I keep asking for. The team had already done the hard, uncomfortable work — conceding that without the arc module the arc never reaches the genre's payoff. What was missing was only that it was written for colleagues: "the genre as its audience knows it" is a warning to someone who knows the industry and a detail to everyone else. Draft r4 changed the register, not the content, and the finding is now impossible to miss. Q35 is the last place I can see where that same gap is still open, and it is the same fix: the team knows something the owner does not, and the sentence that would transfer it is one line long.
+
+
*Round 7 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 this round — Q32, Q33 and Q34 were already marked answered against draft r4 by the roles that answered them, and I have only confirmed them here.*
