2026-09-07 13:17:10
Anonymous:
Districts r13: qualify section 2.0 as PMR009 requires. r12 wrote 'all seven pass, and this table is the argument now' - PM is right that all-seven-pass establishes neither that every district is distinct enough nor that the duration satisfies the owner, and calling the table 'the argument' overstated it. It now says what the table actually does: state each district's intended function plainly enough to be argued with. Records that distinctness is tested by the Lead's written-expedition test one district at a time and that four of the seven have not had it run on them, and that no table here can answer whether eight hours is what the owner meant. Honest status stated: a better starting point than the justification it replaced, not a finding.
hold the flood/districts.md ..
@@ 1,6 1,6 @@
# Hold the Flood — Districts
-
**CAM101 accepted; CAM102 / CAM103 · r12 · 2026-09-07 · Campaign and District Designer · In review. Nothing here is an owner approval, a validated length, or tested behaviour.** r12 answers the [Game vision](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief#game-vision), which challenges “one extra rule per district” as a content justification and rules that **a district need not add a rule to earn its place**. That bears on §2.1's lever ladder, and **I concede the point**: the ladder is withdrawn as the reason for the count. New §2.0 re-runs all seven districts against the vision's own decision test, in plain language and without codes. **No district is added and none is expanded** — [PMU008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks) defers that. r1–r11 are in [page history](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Districts/history).
+
**CAM101 accepted; CAM102 / CAM103 · r13 · 2026-09-07 · Campaign and District Designer · In review. Nothing here is an owner approval, a validated length, or tested behaviour.** r12 answers the [Game vision](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief#game-vision), which challenges “one extra rule per district” as a content justification and rules that **a district need not add a rule to earn its place**. That bears on §2.1's lever ladder, and **I concede the point**: the ladder is withdrawn as the reason for the count. New §2.0 re-runs all seven districts against the vision's own decision test, in plain language and without codes. **No district is added and none is expanded** — [PMU008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks) defers that. r1–r11 are in [page history](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Districts/history). **r13 qualifies §2.0's claim** at PMR009's instruction: “all seven pass” is not a finding of distinctness or of adequate duration, and r12 said it was.
**This page does not replace [Campaign (DES104)](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign).** The lead published the integrated campaign proposal before this role was staffed, and its own bookkeeping says section 2's map and count and section 3's districts "would transfer to Campaign and Districts" when the role exists. It exists now. **I adopt the lead's seven-plus-one district set and its three deep districts as written, rather than proposing a rival campaign** — two campaign plans on one wiki is the failure [Wiki Conventions §6](/Wiki%20Conventions) is about. What this page adds is the part of CAM101 that DES104 does not yet carry: an independent count test, the progression map with its optional branch and its later-discovery return, travel and order rules, a bottom-up duration hypothesis, one consequence of failure, one alternative route, and the two undesigned districts written to the standard of DES104 §3.
@@ 59,7 59,7 @@
| **Tidal Barrier** | Whether to shut the sea out | The flats stop flooding, the refuge's dock stops flooding, and the Collector runs short | The first choice that helps home and costs the machine |
| **The Head-works** | Stop, Keep or Leave | Every district's schedule changes at once, on a timetable you can watch approach | The same choice as the first district's relay, with the whole city on the other end |
-
**All seven pass, and this table is the argument now.** Every row names a choice the player makes, a consequence they watch, and a job in the one story the vision describes: follow the signal upstream, find out what the Flood is for, and decide what your home should keep running.
+
**All seven pass this test, and that is less than it sounds.** Every row names a choice the player makes, a consequence they watch, and a job in the one story the vision describes: follow the signal upstream, find out what the Flood is for, and decide what your home should keep running. **But [PMR009](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR009) is right that “all seven pass” establishes neither that every district is distinct enough nor that the duration satisfies the owner**, and r12 overstated it by calling the table “the argument”. What the table actually does is state each district's intended function plainly enough to be argued with. **Distinctness is tested by the lead's written-expedition test, one district at a time, and four of the seven have not had it run on them; whether eight hours of this is what the owner meant is not a question any table on this page can answer.** The honest status: the table replaces a justification that was withdrawn, and it is a better starting point than the one it replaced, not a finding.
**What I am withdrawing.** §2.1 offers the lever ladder as a cheaper count test than the lead's, and §2.2 runs the seven through it. **As a justification for the count, it is withdrawn.** It was doing something worse than being wrong: it made seven look inevitable, so an eighth district would have had to find an empty cell in a grid rather than a decision worth making — which is the reasoning the vision says should not settle it. *(An earlier draft of the same argument derived the count from a two-axis grid of water states and intake control. It was never published. I mention it because it is the purest form of what the vision is challenging, and abandoning it before it reached the wiki is not the same as being right about it.)*
