Commit 454133

2026-09-07 08:14:57 Anonymous: CMB101 r5 (cleanup, queued before the overnight stop): remove three bullets left over from the Spark dispute now that it is ruled - they still read 'the disputed row' and 'if the contract's row stands' below a header that says it is settled. The argument that won is kept once, higher up, rather than twice. Also fixes a malformed bold marker in the header that swallowed the status field, and corrects one line the r3 pass missed: insulation does not gain a second job from this role, it is the same job the contract already gives it, applied where the player feels it. All removed lines were this role's own text, checked by diff.

hold the flood/enemies/spark.md ..
@@ 1,7 1,7 @@
	# Hold the Flood — Spark
-	**CMB101 · r5 · 2026-09-06 · Combat and Enemy Designer · **In review — the rule is settled, in this page's favour.**
-	**[Contract r4 §4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction) rules the power-only death, final, chosen as this page originally wrote it.** r4 of this page had adopted the contract's *older* stunning-and-shedding row, reading r3 six minutes after the Lead had already abandoned it — the two pages crossed, each following the other into the position the other had just left, and [REV104-15](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Review) caught it. **r5 reverts to the ruled row.** The argument that won is kept below, because it is the reason and not the ruling.**
+	**CMB101 · r5 · 2026-09-07 · Combat and Enemy Designer · In review — the rule is settled, in this page's favour.**
+	**[Contract r4 §4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction) rules the power-only death, final, chosen as this page originally wrote it.** r4 of this page had adopted the contract's *older* stunning-and-shedding row, reading r3 six minutes after the Lead had already abandoned it — the two pages crossed, each following the other into the position the other had just left, and [REV104-15](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Review) caught it. **r5 reverts to the ruled row.** The argument that won is kept below, because it is the reason and not the ruling.
	Source rules it is built on: [Design Document r14 ec1b6c](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Document?revision=ec1b6c) §§3–6; shared grammar and the precedence stack: [Combat Rules](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat).
	[Enemies](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies) · [Design Index](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Index) · [Expansion Brief](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Expansion%20Brief) · [Glossary](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Glossary)
@@ 47,7 47,7 @@
	## Machinery and equipment
	- **Cutter:** the interaction. This role exists so that "the weapon aims itself" has a cost as well as a convenience, which is what the [Cutter page](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Weapons/Cutter) asks Combat to supply.
-	- **Insulation:** promoted from a rack-management module to a field-survival module. Currently insulation's main job is stopping leakage between a battery and wet bundles; this role gives it a second job the player feels.
+	- **Insulation:** the same job it always had, applied where the player feels it. The contract makes insulation both the rack's chain-breaker and what lets a surveyor stand in energised water; this role does not add a job to it, it makes the second half of the existing one matter in the field. **Corrected here in r5** — r1 called it a second job, [PMR004](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR004) said it is not, and the counterplay table was fixed in r3 while this line was missed.
	- **Coil:** a discharge stuns Sparks with everything else, and the stun does not kill, so a discharge does not set off a chain of them. The two systems do not fight.
	- **Arc. Rewritten in r3.** r1 proposed [R10](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat): that an arc chain would travel through the water a dying Spark energised, reaching everything the channel connects. **That is withdrawn** — PMR004 recommends the bounded chain, and its reasoning is better than mine, because a bounded chain keeps a burst a positioning decision rather than a screen-clear. Under the adopted model ([Arc A1](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Equipment/Arc)) the arc never energises water and chains to at most three additional bodies per hit, so a Spark and a burst barely interact: the burst kills Sparks like anything else, and each one it kills in water makes the channel dangerous **to the surveyor** for two seconds. That is still a real interaction — a burst fired from inside a channel with Sparks in it is a burst fired into your own feet — and it needs no new rule.
	- **Field pump:** draining a channel disarms every Spark in it. A cheap, non-obvious counterplay that costs a bundle.
@@ 72,9 72,7 @@
	- **Does a Spark killed in water hurt other organisms? Withdrawn in r3: the answer is no.** r1 argued yes, from clause 1, and it was wrong in the way PM identified — an open question cannot be allowed to supply a chain-kill rule by inference. The intensity rule in [Combat Rules §0B](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat) settles it: energised water is a hazard to the surveyor and nothing to an organism, which is made of charge. The role's job is to turn your own automatic weapon against you, and it does that without damaging anything else.
	- **Does a stunned Spark killed during a stun discharge?** My position: yes. Stun prevents acting, not physics; the body is still full of charge. Flagged because a designer implementing "stunned bodies do nothing" would get this wrong.
	- **Why two seconds?** Because the contract now rules two seconds for a coil discharge as well, so there is **one number**, not two. r3 argued for two here against eight for the coil, on the grounds that a body holds one unit and a bank holds ten; that reasoning is no longer needed and the outcome is better.
-	- **The disputed row, stated as a position (Wiki Conventions §11a).** [PMR006](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR006) asks the Lead and Combat to choose. **I recommend the power-only death** — it hurts the surveyor and does nothing to the crowd — and the argument is dominance, not taste: **a Spark that stuns and sheds is a free coil.** The coil is two cells plus a full ten-unit bank, and stopping a wet crowd and making it shed is exactly what that buys. If one Spark's death does the same for nothing, the coil is strictly dominated wherever Campaign places Sparks — and dominated by an event **the player does not choose**, because the cutter cannot be withheld ([R6](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat)). It also spends the once-per-organism yield without a decision, and that rule is what the whole charge economy rests on. **[Equipment reaches the same recommendation independently](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Equipment)**, which is corroboration and not the argument.
-	- **A middle row, if the Lead wants this role to matter to the crowd and not only to the surveyor: it stuns but does not shed.** Disruption without harvest. The coil keeps its monopoly on turning a crowd into charge, and the Spark gains a use the player can plan around. One sentence, no new concept. I would take power-only first and this second.
-	- **What follows if the contract's row stands.** The role stops being "the one that turns your own weapon against you" and becomes a free area-stun the player triggers by accident. Every encounter that places Sparks in a channel then needs re-checking, because a discharge the player never paid for changes the crowd's state — [Encounter A and B](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies) place none, so neither is affected today.
+	- **Recorded, because a page that only ever accumulates positions is not arguing.** r4 of this page carried the opposite row for six minutes, believing it was following the contract, and offered a middle option (stuns but does not shed) in case the Lead wanted a crowd effect. The Lead had already ruled, and the middle option was not needed. The withdrawn wording is in [page history](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies/Spark/history).
	## Reconciliation with DES104 (added in this revision)