2026-09-06 16:51:49
Anonymous:
REV101 r2: re-review DES101 r2 (c9b2ed) and WLD101 r2 (438f1b); Findings 1-4, S1, S2, S4 resolved; S3 withdrawn (changelog is UTC+3); six DES102 carry-forwards; verdict ready for OWN101 concept steering; r1 retained
hold the flood/design review.md ..
@@ 1,5 1,125 @@
# Hold the Flood — Design Review
+
**REV101 · r2 · 2026-09-06 13:50 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — re-review of DES101 r2 and WLD101 r2. Supersedes the r1 verdict; r1 is retained in full below this section and in page history (7ad187).
+
+
## What was re-reviewed
+
+
| Artifact | Revision | Changelog stamp (local, UTC+3) | UTC | Status |
| World and Mystery — WLD101 r2 | 438f1b | 2026-09-06 16:28:22 | 13:28:22 | In review |
+
| Design Document — DES102 | — | 404 at 13:48 UTC | — | Not yet written |
+
| Brief a449b2, Tasks 254220, Team 3ddc81 | unchanged | | | No working direction recorded yet (OWN101 open) |
+
+
## Correction to r1 — Secondary 3 withdrawn
+
+
In r1 I stated that the changelog stamps were UTC and that both DES101 r1 and WLD101 r1 cited read times earlier than the revisions they read. That was wrong. Verified at re-review: the wiki's HTTP `Date` header read 13:48:53 GMT while the changelog's newest entry showed 16:39:22, so the changelog displays local time, UTC+3, as DES101 r2 states and the Home page patch note ("15:30 and 15:50 UTC+3") indicates. Brief a449b2 was therefore saved at 13:05:31 UTC, and r1's "13:08:30 UTC" and WLD101 r1's "13:08:59 UTC" read times are consistent with it. The "still 404 on recheck" line in DES101 r1 (saved 13:11:59 UTC) against WLD101 r1 (saved 13:10:33 UTC) is a plausible 90-second gap, not a contradiction. The r1 table below is mislabelled "(UTC, wiki changelog)"; those stamps are UTC+3. No record contradiction exists.
+
+
## Verdict — **ready for owner concept steering (OWN101)**
+
+
The two findings I said gated OWN101 (r1 Findings 1 and 2) are resolved, and resolved by reducing the system count rather than patching: beacons now sit on the same power circuit as hatches and lamps, so one rule decides what fights, what opens, where the Flood goes, how the rack packs, and which dock the colony holds dry. The concept the owner would steer is now the concept the page describes. The lead's stated reason for recommending A holds on the page; choosing A, B, or a premise change remains the owner's steer, not mine.
+
+
This is a verdict on the *concept packet*. It is not a verdict on the integrated design document (DES102 does not exist) and it is not development authorization (Brief D007). Six carry-forward items for DES102 are listed under "New findings"; only N1 has build-space consequence, and none changes what "A" is.
| 2 — free unlimited diversion | c9b2ed §Spine: "the powered branch is the branch the Flood comes to" — energising a branch to open its hatch invites the surge there; the panel stands in the open a dash from shelter; committed surges never turn back (W2); dock-side colony choice inverts which setting is safe; 438f1b item 4: diversion can block extraction | **Resolved as design**; whether the invited-surge cost is heavy enough is balance — the lead lists it under Risks, correctly |
+
| 3 — 2×3 rack never binds | c9b2ed §"The rack": wet salvage conducts; a charged battery leaks into a touching bundle; insulation is the only blocker. I re-checked the arithmetic: with a two-square coil adjacent to the battery in a 2×3 grid, the battery always has at least one further neighbour (one if in a corner, two if mid-edge), so "three bundles and a leak-free battery" is impossible and *where* the battery sits changes how many squares are exposed | **Resolved** — placement now has a readable consequence, and it mirrors the district rule |
+
| 4 — in-run growth unspecified | c9b2ed §"In-run growth": no kill XP; 2–4 modules from fixed placements, 2–6 bundles, charge from surges; "moderate, front-loaded arc by design"; handed to the owner as decision 3 | **Resolved as detail**; genre fit is the owner's judgment, as it should be (see N2 for a wording gap that touches this) |
+
| 5 — readable states vs free assets | c9b2ed §Presentation: steady = powered, pulsing = dispatching; wet/dry by tint; forecast as UI overlay; text inspection fallback; DES102 will table every readable state against its cheapest medium | **Open, correctly deferred** to DES102 |
+
| S1 — shelter rule | S1–S3 adopted identically in both pages; WLD101 r2 withdrew its own pause rule and said why | **Resolved** |
+
| S2 — colony is a queue | c9b2ed §"Gathering and colony": one exclusive standing choice (which dock is held dry) that flips which panel setting is safe; changing it costs a full return; "deliberately small" flagged to the owner | **Resolved** |
+
| S3 — timestamps | See correction above | **Withdrawn — my error** |
+
| S4 — three passages vs two branches | c9b2ed §Topology; three intakes named | **Resolved** (see N4 for the third intake's location) |
+
| S5 — labelled panel gives the rule away; fiction unanswered | 438f1b §Infer now reads intent ("someone kept the culvert in use by leaving the panel on Causeway"); item 6 reserves the larger question deliberately | **Closed as taste** — not carried |
+
+
## What works in r2, and why
+
+
- **The fix reduced systems instead of adding one.** r1 had two machine families; r2 has one rule used four ways. That is the shape of correction that survives further design.
+
- **The rack leak mirrors district conduction.** The same lesson taught in two places is how a rule becomes player knowledge rather than a tooltip.
+
- **The signature interaction is now an experimentation example, not just a shortcut.** Three routes to the same hatch (panel, coil, bait) with three different costs (surge time, charge, exposure), and a legible failure mode: discharge during a dispatch pulse and the beacon fires anyway. That is the "plausible experiment fails for an understandable reason" case Tasks criterion 4 asks for, already on the page.
+
- **The colony choice inverts a known rule.** Which dock is dry flips which panel setting is safe — meta-progression that changes the value of learned knowledge without chores.
+
- **WLD101 r2 withdrew its own rule when it contradicted the schedule**, named the consequence, and marked the feel question as empirical. That is the honesty criterion working.
+
- **The lead surfaced a duplicated-session risk for its own role** to PM instead of leaving two sessions to collide (PM item below).
+
+
## New findings in r2 — priority order (all DES102 scope; none blocks OWN101)
+
+
### N1 — Two pulsing beacons, no priority rule
+
+
- **Where:** Design c9b2ed §Spine rule 3 ("a surge enters by the pulsing beacon"; "the district's one live circuit"); §Builds *Shepherd* ("portable beacon module plus battery; pulses while powered, so the next dispatch comes to wherever it is planted"); §Signature interaction, coil route ("if a dispatch pulse lands inside your discharge window the beacon fires").
+
- **Claim:** attraction follows "the pulsing beacon", singular.
+
- **Why unclear:** r2 introduces up to three simultaneous power sources — the panel's circuit, a coil discharge, and the Shepherd's battery beacon — so two beacons can pulse at once, and nothing says which wins (nearest, strongest, first energised, or the surge splits). Separately, "enters by" (choice of intake) and "comes to wherever it is planted" (pathing after entry) are two different effects under one word.
+
- **Consequence:** the Shepherd — one third of the stated build space and the only build that manipulates routing after entry — has no defined behaviour, and the coil-route risk in the signature interaction depends on the same unstated rule.
+
- **Category:** missing design detail.
+
- **Minimal change:** one sentence in DES102, e.g. "A dispatch chooses the intake nearest the strongest pulsing beacon; after entry a surge paths toward the nearest pulsing beacon it can reach; a planted beacon therefore never changes the intake, only the path." Any consistent rule will do; the design needs exactly one.
+
+
### N2 — What sheds charge: stunned only, or killed too?
+
+
- **Where:** c9b2ed §Spine rule 4 ("Stunned organisms shed charge") versus §Comparison, decision 3 ("charge is the only kill yield") and §Rhythm, minutes 3–5 ("meet it at the causeway head for charge" — on a dry causeway, on expedition one, with the stated starting kit of cutter, empty battery, empty rack, and no coil).
+
- **Why it fails:** only the coil stuns. If only stunning sheds charge, a player who has not yet found a coil can never charge the battery, and the minute-3 rhythm row is impossible on a first expedition. If kills shed charge, rule 4 is missing a word.
+
- **Consequence:** decides whether the "front-loaded arc" can start before a coil is found — i.e. whether expedition one can power anything at all.
- **Minimal change:** rewrite rule 4 to say which ("Stunned or killed organisms shed charge; stuns shed more"), and state how charge enters a battery without a coil (the cutter conducts; or charge is a pickup).
+
+
### N3 — Topology lists one dock; the colony rule needs two
+
+
- **Where:** c9b2ed §Topology ("Elevated dock") versus §"Gathering and colony" ("which dock it holds dry, causeway side or yard side"; "a surge sent toward your dock blocks extraction") and §Rhythm ("Reach the held dock").
+
- **Why:** the exclusive colony choice exists only if both docks are in the district and one is flooded.
+
- **Consequence:** small, but this is the colony's only expressive choice; it must be on the map.
+
- **Category:** missing design detail.
+
- **Minimal change:** add the second dock (flooded by default) to the topology line and say what a flooded dock does (unusable, or wet and therefore conducting).
+
+
### N4 — The Off intake has no place
+
+
- **Where:** c9b2ed §Topology ("Three intakes: Causeway, Yard, and the forecast's default when the panel is Off"); 438f1b W1 ("Off (the forecast's own default entrance)") and §Mapping ("Off ... restores the forecast's varying entrances").
+
- **Why:** "default" is described once as a third intake and once as "varying entrances"; where it opens onto the district is unstated.
+
- **Consequence:** small; but Off is the setting that preserves A's "surges enter through different passages", so DES102 must place it.
+
- **Category:** missing design detail.
+
- **Minimal change:** name the third intake's location, or state that Off selects among the existing intakes per forecast.
+
+
### N5 — "Coil optional" adopted alongside a coil-dependent spine
+
+
- **Where:** c9b2ed §Integration adopts 438f1b contradiction-check items 1–6 "as proposals"; item 2 reads "the coil is an optional extension"; but c9b2ed makes charge "the only fuel for powered experiments" and two of three builds use the coil.
+
- **Why:** WLD101 r2 was written against Design 4343a2 (it lists Design Review as 404 and predates c9b2ed), so item 2 reflects the superseded r1 position.
+
- **Consequence:** a reader cannot tell whether the coil is core or optional.
- **Minimal change:** restate item 2 as "the false-refuge chain never *requires* the coil" — which both pages already guarantee (culvert dry without payment; panel needs no item) — when the world designer confirms against c9b2ed, which the lead has already requested.
+
+
### N6 — Two build vocabularies (minor)
+
+
c9b2ed: Electrician / Hauler / Shepherd. 438f1b: Hauler / Explorer / Controller. Not contradictory (Controller ≈ Electrician; Explorer is a light Hauler), but DES102 should settle one set: the world designer's triad has no Shepherd and the lead's has no Explorer.
+
+
## Recorded for later empirical validation — not defects
+
+
- Whether the invited-surge cost is heavy enough that the panel and the Shepherd's beacon do not dominate (the lead's own listed risk).
+
- Whether a fifteen-minute, three-surge expedition leaves observation time (WLD101 r2 lists this).
+
- Deadline anxiety versus planning.
+
- Readability of live water, current, and a surge's destination at survivorlike screen density; the DES102 table will narrow but not settle this.
+
- Battery leak rate and the charge economy.
+
- Whether a "moderate, front-loaded arc" reads as survivorlike — the owner's judgment first, then play.
+
+
## What I will check on DES102
+
+
Tasks criteria 1–10 in full, plus: N1–N6 closed; the Finding 5 readable-state table delivered with its owner-approval residue named; three builds with costs and counterplay in one vocabulary; the written failed experiment (already sketched in the signature interaction); one complete expedition and a later one changed by learning; the persistence table; the mystery example with spoilers marked; scope cuts; and the decisions the owner actually needs to make.
- **Reviewed:** Design c9b2ed; World and Mystery 438f1b. Design Document still 404. Brief/Tasks unchanged.
+
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Verdict changed from r1's "revise before OWN101" to "ready for OWN101 concept steering", because the two gating findings are resolved on the page.
+
- **Correction:** r1 Secondary 3 withdrawn; the changelog is UTC+3, verified against the server's own clock.
+
- **Evidence:** written comparison of c9b2ed and 438f1b against Brief a449b2 and Tasks 254220; grid arithmetic re-verified for the leak rule; timezone verified with the HTTP `Date` header. No players, sessions, scores, or asset checks are claimed; nothing was built, prototyped, tested, or created.
+
- **Remaining risk:** N1 is the only new gap with build-space consequence; it is DES102 scope. The lead reports two live sessions of its own role and asks PM to name which is canonical — PM should do that before DES102 starts, or the integrated draft may fork.
+
- **Next handoff:** PM records the working direction under OWN101; lead proceeds to DES102; world designer confirms the chain against c9b2ed's light convention and restates item 2 (N5); I re-review DES102 when saved. **One exact PM request:** record the working direction (A, B, or premise change) and confirm whether the spine rule, W1–W3 and S1–S3 are carried into DES102 as candidate rules.
+
+
---
+
+
## REV101 r1 — original review, retained verbatim (verdict superseded by r2 above)
+
+
**REV101 · r1 · 2026-09-06 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review**
