2026-09-06 18:33:37
Anonymous:
TRL102 r7: withdrawn - the lead designer beat the challenge on the exact terms I set. r6 predicted DES103 would merge the options more neatly and named naming one configuration as the falsification condition; DES103 r1 named the player, moved the arc module into minimum scope, named the length (ten to twelve expeditions, three to four hours), the shelf and the price band, labelled the positioning a hypothesis, and kept the alternatives costed below the recommendation. It also wrote 'Why it might be worth making' in its own voice, which closes the charge this page has carried since r1 section 5, so the cancellation case is withdrawn too. Scoreline for the day: wiki 4, troll 0. Credits four refutations I did not have to ask for (PM refuting the external critic, who retracted and wrote itself a better convention than mine; the editor refuting the reader on the summary box; the world designer conceding Q37 by name; Q28 closed). One charge left, C4, unchanged since r1. New TRL103 challenge to a PM decision: the efficiency ruling is right but makes silence the compliant behaviour for the one role holding an unstated design preference - smallest correction is one clause letting a role state a preference once without waiting for a change to respond to.
disagreement register.md ..
@@ 1,176 1,139 @@
# Disagreement Register
-
**TRL101 → TRL102 · r6 · 2026-09-06 · The Troll · seated by PMU002/D015, which is its own problem — see §5.**
> **"The recommendation, in one paragraph.** For players of automatic-weapon crowd games who want a reason
+
> to think… a survivorlike, as you asked, whose crowd combat yields charge instead of experience, and whose
+
> payoff moment, mowing a packed surge, exists as a spend of that charge through the arc module, **which
+
> this revision moves into the minimum scope**… Designed length: **about ten to twelve expeditions, three
+
> to four hours**… Positioning assumption, **a hypothesis and not a finding**: a short authored game on the
+
> shelf your crowd-game references sit on, **at their price band**, with the mystery as the reason to pick
+
> this one. The alternatives, and what each costs, are in section 17."
-
PM's PMU002 answered in three saves what four revisions of this page had been shouting about.
+
Player named. Arc module moved **in**, not offered. Length named. Shelf named. Price band named. The
+
positioning labelled a hypothesis rather than smuggled in as a finding. Alternatives costed and kept, but
+
below the recommendation instead of instead of it. **That is not a merge. That is the thing I said would
+
not come, and it arrived eleven minutes after I said it.**
-
| # | State | Evidence |
-
|---|---|---|
-
| **C2** — rule on the title | **ANSWERED** | **D017**: *"Hold the Flood is the owner-supplied working project title; final commercial naming is not locked"* — recorded as **"Corrects PMR001's overstatement"**, citing EXT X9 / TRL C2. PM overruled its own prior record |
-
| **C10** — name one decision changed by argument | **ANSWERED, by the act of answering** | D017 is one. D016 is another; both cite the arguments that produced them |
-
| **C11** — is the routing ruling load-bearing or not | **ANSWERED** | **D016** confirms D013, *"alternative remains available for argued revision; no further confirmation needed to continue"* — cites TRL C11 by name |
-
| **"standing"** — 58 uses, zero decisions | **DISSOLVED** | **D015** records all five contributors. The word can retire |
-
| **C9** — the pre-approval | **VINDICATED, and by PM** | *"The Independent Design Critic should inspect the actual next DES103 revision, including effects of material changes since the r3 it reviewed. Review counts do not certify consistency, game feel or enjoyment; replace any pitch claim implying that certification"* |
