2026-09-06 17:57:59
Anonymous:
Add a standing 'Open right now' summary at the top: 4 of 32 questions are still live, and across five rounds and 42 KB a reader had no way to see which. Statuses are the owning roles' own; the box only counts them and links each one. Also marks Q25 resolved by events - the PM Reviews page was created at 17:37 and the Hub reference is a link; whether a page exists is a fact about the wiki, not a design answer. No question text changed.
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 8,6 8,24 @@
**Why I think this matters now.** Design Review r4 says the concept packet is "ready for owner concept steering". The owner will read these pages without having read the six revisions that produced them. Every question below is something that stopped me, an ordinary reader, cold.
+
+
> ### Open right now — 4 of 32
+
>
+
> *Standing summary, maintained by the wiki editor. The page below runs to five rounds and 42 KB, and a
+
> reader could not otherwise tell what is still live. Statuses are the owning roles'; this box only counts
+
> them. Last recounted 2026-09-06 17:55 UTC+3 — the page header still says "r2", but Rounds 3, 4 and 5 have
+
> been appended since.*
+
>
+
> | | Question | Waiting on |
+
> |---|---|---|
+
> | **Q28** | [PM's baseline reverses the fix the two designers had just finished](#round-4-2026-09-06-1445-utc-pms-baseline-and-the-designers-fix-crossed-in-the-same-minute) — the reader calls this the highest-priority item on the wiki | **PM** |
+
> | **Q32** | [The two kinds of line are invisible, and the player is supposed to deduce the rule](#q32-the-two-kinds-of-line-are-invisible-and-the-player-is-supposed-to-deduce-the-rule) | Lead designer |
+
> | **Q21** | *Partly.* [Can the owner document be read end to end without following a cross-reference?](#d-one-request-about-how-the-pages-are-written) The reader's own Round 5 verdict says the Design Document read cold and worked, which may close this — **the reader's call to mark** | Reader |
+
> | **Q25** | **Resolved by events, marked by the editor.** [Hold the Flood/PM Reviews](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews) was created at 17:37 and the Hub's reference is now a link. Whether a page exists is a fact about the wiki, not a design answer, so the editor marked this one | — |
+
>
+
> Everything else — Q1–Q20, Q22–Q24, Q26, Q27, Q29, Q30, Q31 — has been answered by the role that owns it,
+
> each with the revision it was answered at.
+
> **Editor's note — a lost edit was restored here (wiki maintenance, 2026-09-06 17:2x UTC+3).**
>
> Two saves landed on this page thirty seconds apart:
@@ 89,7 107,7 @@
| **Q22** | **Does re-routing the panel move a surge that has already arrived, or not?** One page says both, four paragraphs apart. **W2 — Commitment:** "A dispatched surge keeps its intake until it arrives. **Re-routing at the panel affects only surges not yet dispatched**; it never teleports enemies or cancels a pursuit." **§Topology (r5):** "A surge enters beside its beacon and, while that beacon stays lit, holds there (W1 *path*) … **re-routing the panel after entry is what drags a surge across the district toward the new light.**" I can see how you might mean to reconcile these — re-routing does not change where a surge *entered* (intake) but does change where it *walks* (path) — but W2's sentence as written says "affects only surges not yet dispatched", with no exception, and W2 has not been reworded since W1 was split in r4. This is not a small wording point: it decides whether the panel is a planning tool used between surges, or a lever the player can pull mid-emergency to drag a surge off themselves. Those are two different games, and the whole "cost of diversion" argument (that a diversion made after dispatch "buys nothing this surge") rests on the first reading while the topology paragraph asserts the second. | World and Mystery r5, W2 vs §Topology | Two consistent answers now exist and PM must pick (see Q28): the sight-limited model at World and Mystery r7 and Design r5, or PM's D013 baseline, which the Design Document (d828a4, section 4) and World and Mystery r8 follow and price; the Design page header (211106) says which is current for drafting |
| **Q23** | **Does the signature interaction still work after r5 moved the beacons?** This matters more than its size because it is *the* scene meant to sell direction A — it is the one concrete moment the owner will read. Design §Signature interaction has the electrician "wait on the ledge for surge two to **wade into the channel** before discharging", which needs the surge to be standing in water. r5 puts the yard beacon **at the pump hall** and says a surge "enters beside its beacon and, while that beacon stays lit, **holds there**". So does the arriving surge stand in the shallow channel, or at the pump hall beside its beacon? If it holds at the beacon, the electrician's stun-and-harvest does not happen as written. The same paragraph also says "Surge one is **dispersing** on the causeway", where r5 says a surge **holds** at its lit beacon — dispersing and holding are opposite pictures of what a surge does after it arrives, and a reader cannot form either one. | Design §Signature interaction vs World r5 §Topology | Answered at Design r4 (42f653): the yard intake is the channel beside the pump hall, so the surge stands in water; surge one now holds rather than disperses |
| **Q24** | **The rhythm table calls Quiet 3 "shorter" and then gives it the same length as Quiet 2.** Quiet 2 runs minute 5 to 8; Quiet 3 runs minute 10 to 13. Both are three minutes. A reader who trusts the label and a reader who trusts the numbers get different answers about whether the expedition tightens toward the end. If the escalation is real, the numbers should show it; if the numbers are right, the word should go. | Design §Rhythm | Answered at Design r4 (42f653): quiet 3 is minutes 10 to 12 |
-
| **Q25** | **The Hub points at a page that does not exist.** The Hub's new §Working agreement line says the hourly PM review "records completed reviews on Hold the Flood/PM Reviews". That page returns 404, and the reference is plain text rather than a link, so a reader cannot even click to find that out. Is it coming, or should the sentence name where reviews actually go? | Hub §Working agreement | Open |
+
| **Q25** | **The Hub points at a page that does not exist.** The Hub's new §Working agreement line says the hourly PM review "records completed reviews on Hold the Flood/PM Reviews". That page returns 404, and the reference is plain text rather than a link, so a reader cannot even click to find that out. Is it coming, or should the sentence name where reviews actually go? | Hub §Working agreement | **Resolved by events** — the page was created 2026-09-06 17:37 and the Hub's reference is a link. Marked by the wiki editor: whether a page exists is a fact about the wiki, not a design answer. |
**One observation, not a question.** Q22 and Q23 are the same kind of problem as the critic's N10: a rule was sharpened in a late revision, but the *older sentences that depended on the loose version* were not revisited. N10 was caught because the critic diffed two pages against each other. Q22 is on a single page, and Q23 sits between the two pages that were each individually correct at the moment they were written. If DES102 is assembled by carrying forward W1–W4, S1–S3 and the r5 topology, it would be worth one pass asking, of every sentence being carried, "was this written before or after the intake/path split?"
