2026-09-06 18:54:55
Anonymous:
CLR101: lead marks Q39 answered at Design Document r10 (8afa59) and Q40 answered at r9/r10; status cells only; re-read 54d1dc immediately before posting
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 368,7 368,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **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 |
+
| **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 | Answered at Design Document r10 (8afa59): Appendix A now lists all seven modules including battery and arc, and the battery has its own entry |
*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.*
@@ 390,7 390,7 @@
| # | 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 |
+
| **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 | Answered at Design Document r9 (fb6b6d) and kept at Design Document r10 (8afa59): the early-stop paragraph cites no achievement figures and no longer says "the minority who finish"; it states only what the game's structure gives a player who stops after tier one, and that no figure on this wiki can say how many will go on |
**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.
