2026-09-08 18:21:00
Anonymous:
Clarify v1 room and mechanism brief obligations and uniquely account for their remaining work
hold the flood/production scope.md ..
@@ 51,6 51,16 @@
**Complete wiki v1:** every major domain has a usable proposed or selected rule, consequential alternatives are dispositioned or explicitly provisional, and the finite inventory explains progression, rewards, cast, both languages, endings and interfaces. There must be enough concrete behaviour to expose missing links. A domain containing only a title or “TBD” fails this milestone.
+
V1's room/mechanism inventory must contain actual briefs, not only count allocation:
+
+
| Unit | Minimum v1 output | Additional detailed-campaign work |
+
|---|---|---|
+
| Each of24 reusable modules | Proposed internal geometry, entrance/fixture relationships, available actions and intended discovery/pressure role | Full variants and compatible interface combinations, detailed cue/interaction placement and authored exceptional states |
+
| Each of40 placed rooms | Named identity/module, region and objective links, actual contents/reward, first-visit/revisit purpose, proposed access and recovery constraints | Exact per-instance placement, every selected branch/transient state and concrete consequences across permitted arrangements |
+
| Each of12 placed mechanisms | First-version geometry, warning, action/stages, reset/rearm and persistence boundary, usable alternative/recovery and linked discovery | Full variant/combined-encounter details, exact thresholds and exhaustive state/recovery paths |
+
+
A room brief may reference its module and a mechanism brief, but cannot omit its own distinguishing content. V1 retains Design Coverage's twelve placed-mechanism obligation; the new allowance below makes it explicit. Detailed campaign work extends these accepted briefs rather than charging them again.
+
**Detailed campaign specification:** every approved placed room, mechanism, clue, scene, reward and ending branch has concrete entry/exit, observation, action, interruption, persistence and recovery behaviour. Shared definitions are referenced; instance-specific differences are authored. Precise tuning may still require later evidence. This is larger than a map of twelve objectives.
**Production and validation:** engine architecture, actual tools, runtime content, assets, integration, performance, accessibility testing and real-player evidence. These are a separate, currently unauthorised phase. Documentation completion does not establish a working or enjoyable game.
@@ 63,9 73,10 @@
| Remaining author outcome | Included depth and exclusion boundary | Author role-hours |
| Regional/objective map | Four regions, twelve objectives, two viable dependency orders and allocation constraints; excludes the room/mechanism briefs in the next row | 8–14 |
| Acquisition, build/combat interfaces and roster | Sources for twelve parts, progression/rig-growth proposal, shared controllers and nine role briefs; excludes exhaustive port/encounter variants | 10–18 |
+
| Acquisition, build/combat interfaces and roster | Sources for twelve parts, progression/rig-growth proposal, shared controllers and a completed nine-role roster using the three existing creature briefs where suitable; write only missing roles and distinct integration, not those briefs again; excludes exhaustive port/encounter variants | 10–18 |
| Survival variants | Representative canister/loadout variants and provisional quantities; excludes UI and balance validation | 3–6 |
| Story and ending map | Four mystery/personal chains, causal alternatives, visible choices and consequences; references shared clues/scenes | 10–18 |
| Cast and home map | Five arcs/fifteen scene briefs plus five linked project operations; shared scenes counted once, no final dialogue | 12–20 |
@@ 74,11 85,13 @@
| State/content interface completion | Representative transition/reference/compatibility matrix and explicit provisional recovery policy; excludes full migration/storage design | 5–9 |
| Scope and final v1 handoff | This scope reconciliation and a revision-specific development proposal with conditions, staffing and estimate; no implementation | 6–10 |
-
Author subtotal: **74–129 role-hours**. Add **20–34** for one focused independent domain/coherence review allocation, **10–18** for consolidated author responses, and **12–20** for PM cross-article integration/decision relay: **116–201 role-hours** in this planning envelope. Do not add the outline's older coherence-review allowance or each article's historical first-pass review again. The review allocation must cover both domain checks and one cross-domain pass; discovering a gap requires an explicit revision.
+
Author subtotal: **94–163 role-hours**. Add **24–40** for one focused independent domain/coherence review allocation, **12–20** for consolidated author responses, and **14–24** for PM cross-article integration/decision relay: **144–247 role-hours** in this planning envelope. Do not add the outline's older coherence-review allowance or each article's historical first-pass review again. The review allocation must cover both domain checks and one cross-domain pass; discovering a gap requires an explicit revision.
+
+
**Revision after focused review:** the draft116–201 allowance omitted an explicit room/mechanism brief package despite Coverage's v1 promise. Adding20–34 author hours plus4–6 review,2 response and2–4 integration gives28–46 additional role-hours and the revised144–247. This is newly exposed scope, not slower observed throughput. The v1 target/window is retained provisionally because its parallel-content/integration buffer was not derived from the old total; confidence remains low-medium, and the9 September re-estimate must check capacity against this larger ledger.
These are judgement-based allowances, not calibrated forecasts of agent typing speed. Some remaining work is already in flight and should be removed from the balance when its stated depth is accepted. Track actual assignment-to-acceptance elapsed time separately from productive effort. Fast prose is useful, but a fifteen-minute brief does not measure the work of authoring and checking every concrete branch.
-
For calendar planning, retaining **22 September, likely18–29 September**, allows roughly eight to sixteen working days from8 September, with content streams overlapping and PM integration/owner decisions on the critical path. For this schedule, a working day is a6–8-hour active operating window in which available roles can overlap; it is neither a cap of6–8 summed role-hours nor a promise of that many productive hours from every role. Two additional specialist streams are planned9–10 September. This is not a division of116–201 by four permanently busy agents and is not6–8 hours of owner work. Claude is currently paused; no resumption is assumed before the owner confirms it. If the additional streams are still unavailable on10 September, use a provisional current-team scenario of25 September for v1, likely22 September–2 October, pending that day's capacity check. A late owner answer moves only dependent work; a critical shared-rule change may consume the existing buffer and requires its own revision. Re-estimate9 September18:00, or earlier if the inventory, staffing or a critical choice changes.
+
For calendar planning, retaining **22 September, likely18–29 September**, allows roughly eight to sixteen working days from8 September, with content streams overlapping and PM integration/owner decisions on the critical path. For this schedule, a working day is a6–8-hour active operating window in which available roles can overlap; it is neither a cap of6–8 summed role-hours nor a promise of that many productive hours from every role. Two additional specialist streams are planned9–10 September. This is not a division of144–247 by four permanently busy agents and is not6–8 hours of owner work. Claude is currently paused; no resumption is assumed before the owner confirms it. If the additional streams are still unavailable on10 September, use a provisional current-team scenario of25 September for v1, likely22 September–2 October, pending that day's capacity check. A late owner answer moves only dependent work; a critical shared-rule change may consume the existing buffer and requires its own revision. Re-estimate9 September18:00, or earlier if the inventory, staffing or a critical choice changes.
