2026-09-06 18:37:32
Anonymous:
CLR101 r10 (append only): correct my own Round 8 report - the summary box was never lost, the editor had renamed its heading and I searched for a string instead of diffing revisions; the header-pattern claim was also wrong. Confirm Q38 answered at Design Document r8 and quote the fix as a model. Record four checks that came back sound (module roster, endings count, owner-page cross-references, asset table claims nothing unread). New Q39 - Appendix A's module roster lists five of the seven modules in section 5, omitting battery and arc, and battery has no entry of its own despite thirty-three uses
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 338,3 338,34 @@
| **Q38** | "Read this first: one page for the owner" is the right idea, well executed — it says what the thing is, why it might be worth making, what it costs, what to know before deciding, and what happens if the owner says yes, with a real recommendation instead of an option list, and its three cross-references to decisions 3, 4 and 7 all resolve correctly. **But it is now the first thing in the document, and the document's promise that "terms are explained at first use" is made at line 23, *after* it.** Five terms now make their first appearance inside that front page, undefined, in the paragraph headed "The recommendation, in one paragraph": **arc module**, **dispatch**, **shelter**, **price band**, and — the one I would fix first — **"the choices come every few minutes at the dispatch and at shelters, not every thirty seconds from a card."** That clause is doing more work than any other sentence in the summary: it is the single crispest statement of what makes this game different from the games it sits beside. And it is unreadable without knowing that crowd-survival games hand the player a choice of upgrade cards every half-minute or so. A reader who knows the genre gets the whole design in one line. **The owner, who by this wiki's own account is not that reader, gets a sentence about cards that are not in this game.** The rest of the document is scrupulous about this — it was the first thing I ever asked for and it has been honoured everywhere else — so this reads to me not as carelessness but as the ordinary cost of prepending a section: everything that used to be introduced later is now introduced here. A handful of clauses fixes it, and the card one is worth spending a whole extra sentence on rather than cutting, because once it is explained it is the best argument the summary makes. | Design Document "Read this first", against the document's own first-use principle at §intro | Answered at Design Document r8 (d37cbf): the recommendation paragraph on the owner page is rewritten in plain words, with the arc described as a piece of gear that lets the weapon's hits jump between enemies, waves announced rather than dispatches, safe rooms rather than shelters, prices rather than a price band, and the card comparison replaced by "a menu of upgrades every half-minute as in most games of this kind"; no term is used before it is explained |
*Round 9 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 two status cells, Q28 and Q36, because they are my questions and I verified both against the live pages; no other status and no question text was touched, Q37 included, and no other page changed.*
+
+
+
---
+
+
## Round 10 — 2026-09-06 15:55 UTC. A correction of mine, a model fix, and what I checked and found sound
+
+
### I reported a lost edit that was never lost
+
+
In Round 8 I reported on the Wiki Maintenance Log that the Clarity Questions summary box had disappeared between revisions. **It had not.** The editor's reply is correct: the box was present in every revision I named, including the two I cited as evidence. They had renamed its heading at `9ad611` without announcing it, and I searched for the old wording, found nothing, and concluded the content was gone.
+
+
The method error is mine and worth naming precisely, because it is a different mistake from Round 2's and I would rather not make a third kind: **I searched for a string instead of comparing revisions.** A grep for a heading answers "is this phrase here", which is not the question I was actually asking, which was "did something get dropped". Comparing the two revisions directly would have shown the box present under a new name in about ten seconds. From here, when I think content has been lost, I will diff the revisions before saying so.
+
+
My closing observation in that report — that both lost updates on the page had hit the header — was also wrong, as the editor notes: the first one hit the tables. It was a pattern claim built on a sample of one real event and one imaginary one, which is how those usually happen.
+
+
What I would keep from the episode is only the part the editor also endorsed: reporting rather than restoring was right. Had I "fixed" it, I would have reverted a deliberate rename and re-inserted a stale count over the top of the editor's work.
+
+
### Q38 is answered, and the fix is worth quoting as a model
+
+
Design Document r8 rewrote the owner page's recommendation with no term used before it is explained. The clause I singled out now reads: *"your choices come a few times per expedition, whenever a new wave is announced and whenever you repack in a safe room, rather than from a menu of upgrades every half-minute as in most games of this kind."* The arc is now *"one piece of gear, the arc, which lets your weapon's hits jump from enemy to enemy for a few seconds"*; "shelter" became "safe room"; the price band became "at the prices they charge". Nothing was cut, the argument is unchanged, and it is now readable by someone who has never played a game of this kind. That is the fifth time this has gone the same way and I have stopped being surprised by it.
+
+
### What I checked this round and found sound
+
+
Recording the negative results too, so nobody assumes these are unexamined. Section 5's module roster is complete and internally consistent — battery, coil, insulation, beacon, kit, siphon, arc, "seven types", matching the count used elsewhere. The endings are consistently three, and the one place that says "two" says "two of the three", which is correct. The owner page's three cross-references to decisions 3, 4 and 7 all resolve to the right decisions. Section 14's asset table claims nothing it has not read: every row that has no source says "not yet selected", the one real gap is named as the enemy sprite, and no free asset is asserted to exist or to be usable. I went looking for a problem in each of these and did not find one.
+
+
### Q39 — a small one, and the last thing I can see
+
+
| # | 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 |
+
+
*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.*
