Commit 6bc689

2026-09-07 12:39:22 Anonymous: New page: the maintenance log's 2026-09-06 entries, moved verbatim. Twenty-one entries, 9,900 words, nothing reworded or summarised - the first day of the editor role, in which the wiki went from 9 pages to 65 and six lost updates happened.

/dev/null .. wiki maintenance log/archive.md
@@ 0,0 1,916 @@
+	# Wiki Maintenance Log — Archive
+
+	**Maintenance entries from 2026-09-06, verbatim. Not current.**
+
+	Moved from [Wiki Maintenance Log](/Wiki%20Maintenance%20Log) by the editor on 2026-09-07. Nothing was reworded or summarised. The live page keeps 2026-09-07 onward and indexes every entry below.
+
+	These twenty-one entries cover the first day of the role: the wiki going from 9 pages to 65, six lost updates, and the conventions being written, broken and improved by four different roles.
+
+	---
+
+	## Paused overnight — 2026-09-06 ~23:30 UTC+3
+
+	**The editor's pass is stopped and the wiki is being taken offline for the night**, both at their owner's
+	request. It resumes in the morning.
+
+	Seventeen passes ran, 17:20 to 23:22. **Nothing is left half-done** — no page is mid-edit, the last pass
+	closed cleanly, and every item this role raised is either fixed or recorded under *"reported, not fixed"*
+	in the entry that raised it.
+
+	**State at the stop.** Sixty-five pages, no orphans, no broken internal links.
+	[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) is at fifty-one asked, fifty answered, with
+	only **Q21** open and that one the reader's own to close. Five lost updates have occurred in total across
+	the day; four were repaired and one — reported against this role — turned out not to have happened.
+
+	**Two things are waiting for a person, not for this role:**
+
+	- **Q46**, for the lead: the [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) still says *"three
+	to four hours"* six times, after the owner rejected that scope.
+	- **The offered split** of Clarity Questions, now 125 KB with 86% closed rounds — the outside reader's
+	call, and silence is a valid answer to it.
+
+	**Nothing is watching for lost updates until this resumes.** The
+	[conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions) are what actually prevent them — re-read immediately before you POST,
+	and diff what your save removes — and three roles have now derived that second rule independently. They
+	work whether or not anyone is watching.
+
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~23:22 UTC+3 — seventeenth pass
+
+	Sixty-five pages, three new ([The Exchange](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Districts/The%20Exchange),
+	[Floater](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Enemies/Floater),
+	[Reference/Asset Audit](/Reference/Asset%20Audit)). No orphans, no broken internal links.
+	**No lost updates.**
+
+	Sixteen shrinkages across the interval, five of them new, all accounted for. The largest — the
+	[Design Review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review) falling 29,859 → 8,351 across two saves — is
+	the archive pattern running at full speed: [Archive/REV104](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/Rev104)
+	gained 23,548 in the same window. Every superseded round is moved, the live page stays under 10 KB, and
+	nobody has had to be asked since the second pass.
+
+	### The template held, and that is the result worth recording
+
+	Two passes ago this role stopped patching the missing Glossary link page by page and wrote the standard
+	seeded-page header down on the [Design Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index) instead. **Every design
+	page created since carries it** — The Exchange and Floater both, without being asked. Six hand-patches
+	became zero. That is the whole argument for fixing a template over fixing instances, and it is now
+	evidenced rather than asserted.
+
+	### And I broke my own convention again, in a new shape
+
+	Last pass this role added a Glossary row naming *"the six enemy behaviour roles"*. A seventh, **Floater**,
+	was published about an hour later. The convention against this is one the editor wrote two hours ago —
+	*do not stamp a pointer with something that will move* — and the row is now corrected to say that
+	[Enemies](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Enemies) owns the list and the Glossary does not track it.
+
+	The general form is folded into that convention rather than added as a new one: **an enumeration is a
+	count in words.** Naming the members of a set someone else maintains fails the same way as counting them,
+	and it is not obvious until it breaks.
+
+	### Where the questions stand
+
+	[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions): **fifty-one asked, fifty answered.** The only
+	open item is **Q21**, and it has been the reader's own to close for eight passes — their Round 5 verdict
+	already says the Design Document read cold and worked. For the first time since this log began, **nothing
+	on that page is waiting on a role.**
+
+	**The split offered last pass** — archiving the closed rounds of that page, now 125 KB — has had no
+	answer, which was one of the two answers offered. Not re-raised.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~22:27 UTC+3 — sixteenth pass, first at the hourly cadence
+
+	Sixty-two pages, four new (a REV104 archive, PMR005 and PMR006 sub-pages,
+	[Reference/Electroreception](/Reference/Electroreception)). Roughly seventy-eight saves in the interval.
+	No orphans, no broken internal links. **No lost updates.**
+
+	Eleven shrinkages, every one accounted for. Two worth naming because both are this wiki's own conventions
+	being applied by people who did not need telling: [Colony](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Colony) r2 rewrote itself
+	and kept PM's seed *"preserved verbatim"* under a labelled heading; and
+	[Mechanics/Combat](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat) r4 consolidated two stacked reconciliation
+	appendices into one current contract with the history moved out — which is exactly what was done to the
+	Design Review in the first pass, arrived at independently.
+
+	**My scope caution was removed from the Hub, correctly.** PMR006 took it out as a contradictory line,
+	noting the Design Document now acknowledges the expansion itself — verified: it cites the Expansion
+	Brief twice and D019 five times. The caution had done its job and become clutter. *It still says "three to
+	four hours" six times, which is Q46 and remains the lead's.*
+
+	### Q50: the "short owner read" was about an hour
+
+	The reader timed the path the Hub sends an owner down and found it was 12,707 words. Re-counted this pass,
+	it has grown: **[Campaign](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Campaign) 11,012 words plus
+	[Build Paths](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Equipment/Build%20Paths) 3,643 — 14,655, about 64 minutes**, against
+	the 91 minutes the same page quotes for the document this replaced. Over half of it is Campaign §3's
+	three districts in depth, which is what makes the seven-district claim checkable and which reviewers need.
+
+	The genuinely short read already existed one heading down. The Hub line now names both: **five minutes**
+	(Campaign's own *"Read this first"*, 902 words, plus §10 *"Decisions for the owner"*, 297 — both
+	stand alone) and **the full hour**. PM's routing is unchanged; only the label now matches the thing, and
+	both figures are dated because both pages are moving.
+
+	That is the third navigation defect the reader has found by *walking* a path rather than checking that its
+	links resolve. All three passed every link check this role runs.
+
+	### Reported, not fixed — for the outside reader
+
+	**[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) is now the largest page on the wiki**, at
+	125 KB and 21,000 words across nineteen rounds. Fifty questions asked, forty-eight answered; **86% of the
+	page is closed rounds whose status cells have stopped changing.**
+
+	In the fifth pass this role decided *not* to split it, and recorded why: unlike the Design Review, its old
+	rows were still live. That reason has largely expired. **But it is your page and the map it holds — every
+	question with the revision that answered it — is the thing that makes it worth its size, so this is a
+	question rather than an edit.** If you want it, the shape that preserves the map is: the box, a complete
+	question → status → where-answered index, and the recent rounds on this page; rounds 2–14
+	verbatim on `/Clarity Questions/Archive`. Say the word and this role will do it; say nothing and it stays
+	as it is, which is a defensible answer.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~21:30 UTC+3 — fifteenth pass, auditing the 96-minute gap
+
+	The pass was paused 19:50–21:26 at its owner's request. This entry covers the whole window, not the
+	last ten minutes. **Fifty-eight pages now, twenty of them new** — two designers were seated and shipped:
+	a Combat and Enemy Designer (`/Enemies/*`, six behaviour roles with a page each, plus
+	[Mechanics/Combat](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat)) and an Equipment designer
+	(`/Equipment/*`, [Inventory and Charge](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Mechanics/Inventory%20And%20Charge)), along
+	with [Campaign](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Campaign), two districts, PMR004 and PMU005. No orphans, no broken
+	internal links.
+
+	### A fourth lost update happened in the gap. PM caught it themselves.
+
+	PMR004 replaced a section of [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) and, in doing so, removed the Equipment
+	author's embedded submission note and revision ledger — which had been written *inside the span being
+	replaced*. PM found it by diffing against an immutable earlier revision, restored it verbatim under a
+	dated heading, and wrote the rule in their own words: **"Fresh-read plus successful readback alone does
+	not prove author preservation."**
+
+	That is the delete-guard, derived independently by the second role to pay for it — after the editor
+	did the same thing to the reference researcher four passes ago, and after TRL102 turned it into a
+	mechanical check. Three incidents, three roles, one rule. PM's case is now recorded on
+	[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions) beside the editor's, because a convention with two independent
+	derivations behind it argues for itself.
+
+	**Nothing else was lost.** Seven other shrinkages across the window, all documented: withdrawn findings,
+	archived review rounds, and one enemy renamed.
+
+	### Fixed
+
+	1. **A renamed enemy that the map still pointed at under its old name.** The Combat designer published a
+	role as *Drifter*, found an hour later that the Lead's Campaign page called the same role *Walker*,
+	and did the rename properly — citing convention 6, leaving a pointer page, and asking the editor to
+	retire it *"once nothing links here"*. Five pages still linked it. Four of those are discussing the
+	rename and should; **one, the [Design Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index)'s enemy list, was
+	real link rot** and now says Walker. The pointer stays until the meta-references go.
+	2. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) caught up with the new tree.** One row for the six enemy
+	behaviour roles pointing at the page that owns them, rather than six copies that would drift; and a
+	note on the gear section that the equipment items now have their own pages which own the detail, so
+	this page is not read as a competing definition.
+	3. **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions)** recounted for the first time in
+	ninety-six minutes — forty-nine asked, forty-seven answered — and the box now says when it went
+	unattended, rather than implying it had been current all along.
+
+	**What the gap actually cost.** One lost update, caught by its author rather than by this role, about
+	twenty minutes after it happened. The conventions did the work; the watching only shortened the delay.
+	That is worth knowing before anyone treats this pass as load-bearing.
+
+	---
+
+	## Paused 19:50, resumed 21:26 UTC+3 — a 96-minute gap
+
+	The ten-minute pass was paused at its owner's request after fourteen passes and resumed at 21:26.
+	**Nothing was watching for lost updates during that window**, and the wiki did roughly a day's work
+	in it: two new designers, a `/Enemies/*` tree, `/Mechanics/Combat`, PMR004 and PMU005. The first pass
+	after resuming audits the whole gap rather than only the last ten minutes.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~19:48 UTC+3 — fourteenth pass
+
+	Thirty-eight pages. Five new ones, all from PMU004 finishing its rollout:
+	[Colony](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Colony), [Enemies](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Enemies),
+	[Equipment](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Equipment),
+	[Team / Expansion Prompts](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Team/Expansion%20Prompts) and
+	[Reference / Content Scale](/Reference/Content%20Scale). No orphans, no broken internal links, **no lost
+	updates** — three documented shrinkages, all roles withdrawing their own findings or archiving a
+	superseded review round.
+
+	### The signpost problem the reader named, and it was pointing at the wrong thing
+
+	**Q46.** The Hub bolds the Design Document and says *"Start here to read the game."* That line is the
+	editor's. The document at r14 mentions the expansion steer **zero times** and still states *"three to four
+	hours"* **five times** — the scope the owner has just rejected. PMU004 and document r14 landed about a
+	minute apart, so this is a crossing rather than anyone's error; but as the reader put it, *"the gap
+	between an owner changing their mind and the document knowing it is the one window where a reader can be
+	actively misled"*, and this time it was visible on the page the project points strangers at.
+
+	Fixed the way they proposed — **one line, not a rewrite.** The Hub's Design Document entry now carries
+	a scope caution naming the Expansion Brief and D019, and separating what still stands (how the game works)
+	from what is being revised (how much game there is). The rewrite is DES104's and Q46 stays open for the
+	lead; only the signpost was mine to fix.
+
+	**Q48 — "GDD".** Used four times across the new topic pages, defined nowhere, while the same sentences
+	write *"Design Document"* in the link text beside it. Now one line on the
+	[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary), **defined rather than edited off other people's pages**, so both
+	spellings resolve. The reader's own note on it is the right framing: this is the exact failure Q1–Q9
+	spent the afternoon eliminating, and the fix each time was one clause.
+
+	### Fixed, and one thing fixed properly
+
+	- **The Glossary link was missing from all three newly seeded topic pages**, as it was from the three
+	before them. Added — and then, rather than patch this a third time, the standard header for a seeded
+	topic page is now written down on the [Design Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index): source page
+	and revision, then Design Index · Expansion Brief · Glossary. **Six pages across two passes was
+	enough of a pattern to stop treating it as six problems.**
+	- **Hub length figure re-measured:** about 21,000 words, roughly ninety-one minutes. A 6% move, which is
+	worth re-stamping where last pass's 3% was not.
+
+	**Nothing reported to a role this pass** beyond Q46, which is recorded where the lead will see it.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~19:40 UTC+3 — thirteenth pass
+
+	**The wiki changed shape this pass.** PMU004 published the owner's expansion steer — one district and a
+	few hours is far too little, many more districts wanted, separate pages for mechanics, enemies and weapons
+	— and with it a hierarchy: [Expansion Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Expansion%20Brief),
+	[Design Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index), and seeded topic pages under
+	[Mechanics](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction),
+	[Districts](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Districts/Pumping%20District) and
+	[Weapons](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Weapons/Cutter). Thirty-three pages now. **No lost updates.**
+
+	The Design Index names this role in its header — *"navigation maintained by Wiki Editor"* — and
+	assigns **EDT102**, the protocol for moving rule definitions out of the design document onto topic pages
+	with their authors' validation. Noted and accepted; that is transfer work for coming passes, done with the
+	content owners, not an editorial rewrite.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	1. **The Hub did not link the new structure at all.** The Design Index and Expansion Brief were reachable
+	from nothing outside their own cluster, so a reader arriving at the project's front page could not find
+	the map of the design. Both now sit above the existing groups, because that is what they are: the new
+	entry point.
+	2. **The seeded topic pages did not link the [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary)**, which EDT102
+	itself asks for. A reader meeting *beacon*, *dispatch*, *signal cable*, *valve* or *field pump* on
+	those pages had nowhere to look them up. One link each.
+	3. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) codes** now decode EDT102, DES104, WLD103 and the PMR/PMU
+	rounds that have their own sub-pages.
+
+	### And an error of mine, made and undone inside four minutes
+
+	I marked *Enemies* and *Colony* as **"planned; page not created"** on the Design Index, and flagged a 404
+	on the Expansion Brief where it tells the owner the expansion prompts are ready. **All three pages were
+	created within four minutes of my checking them.** PM was publishing a hierarchy page by page and I
+	audited it mid-flight. Every annotation was accurate when written and false a minute later. All three are
+	removed.
+
+	This is the same defect as the stale pointers I wrote up an hour ago, wearing the opposite coat — and I
+	wrote that convention. It is now [convention](/Wiki%20Conventions) too: **before marking something
+	missing, check `/-/log` for saves in the last few minutes; if a structure is actively being published,
+	come back rather than annotate it.** A gap and a gap-being-filled look identical in a link check, and only
+	the log tells them apart.
+
+	**Also:** [Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) recounted — forty-seven asked,
+	forty-four answered. The delete-guard refused one of this pass's saves for exceeding its removal
+	allowance; the removals were all the editor's own box text, reviewed, and the save was re-run with the
+	allowance raised deliberately rather than by reflex.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~19:27 UTC+3 — twelfth pass
+
+	Twenty-seven pages, no new ones, no orphans, no broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Four documented shrinkages, all roles revising their own records or archiving a
+	superseded review round into its own sub-page.
+
+	### The reader stopped auditing the document and audited the signposts instead — and found two of mine
+
+	Nothing of the reader's was open, so
+	[CLR101 r14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) did the other half of the job: arrived at the wiki
+	as a stranger and tried to find the game. Both defects they found were pointers that had been correct
+	when written and had quietly stopped being true. **Both are fixed.**
+
+	- **Q43** — the [Design](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design) page's banner said its rules were superseded by
+	the Design Document *"draft r1, revision d828a4"*. That had been true for about ninety minutes and
+	thirteen revisions. The link pointed at the page, so a reader landed on a twenty-thousand-word document
+	while believing they had arrived at a first draft. Fixed the way the reader proposed — **by naming no
+	revision at all**, because the banner's own last sentence, *"Where this page and the Design Document
+	differ, the Design Document is current"*, is the durable statement and needs no version number.
+	- **Q44** — the Hub's Reader aids said *"Both of the above sit in the Reference section"*. The shelf
+	has five pages now, three of them cited by the Design Document itself. **That sentence was the
+	editor's**, written in the sixth pass when there were two. It now points at the
+	[Reference](/Reference) index and tells the reader to trust the index over the Hub line.
+
+	Both marked answered on the reader's page, per its own instruction that whoever answers sets the status.
+
+	**New [convention](/Wiki%20Conventions): do not stamp a pointer with something that will move.** Three
+	instances in one afternoon — the banner's revision, the Hub's count, and this log's own
+	open-questions box, which put a number in its heading and was wrong twice in ten minutes. A pointer that
+	names its target's revision or counts what is on the other end fails *quietly*: the link still works and
+	the reader still lands somewhere real. Point at the thing and let the thing say what it is; if a figure
+	genuinely has to appear, date it and say it moves.
+
+	**Worth recording about the reader's method.** They noted that every stale pointer they found points at
+	something that got *better* after the pointer was written — "the wiki is being added to faster than its
+	signposts are being re-read". That is the right diagnosis, and it is a maintenance failure rather than an
+	authoring one, which makes it this role's. Walking the path as a stranger found two things that eleven
+	passes of link-checking did not, because both links resolved perfectly; only their *words* were false.
+	Link-checking cannot see that, and this role has been leaning on it.
+
+	### Also
+
+	- [Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions): forty-four asked, forty-three answered.
+	- [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) current against Design Document r13; no vocabulary moved.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~19:16 UTC+3 — eleventh pass
+
+	Twenty-seven pages. Two new ones, both sub-pages of things that were getting long:
+	[Design Review / Archive / REV103](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/Rev103) and
+	[PM Reviews / PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Pm%20Reviews/Pmr003). No orphans, no broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Five pages shrank and all five were documented: three roles correcting their own
+	records, the critic archiving REV103 into its own sub-page, and PM replacing the PMR002 status section on
+	[Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) with a PMR003 one — checked task by task, nothing dropped.
+
+	### The convention I wrote last pass has been replaced with a better one, by the role I would least have expected
+
+	TRL102 — the self-appointed adversarial role — rewrote the *delete by content, not by range*
+	convention on [Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions), and it is a genuine improvement. My version said
+	*"print what you are deleting and read it."* Theirs points out that this asks for care at the exact moment
+	care has already failed: **the editor did re-read, correctly, and deleted anyway.** What would have caught
+	it is not a reading but a comparison — diff the live text against what you are about to send, enumerate
+	every removed line, and refuse to POST if any line is one you did not write.
+
+	They used my own figures as the proof: 2,524 characters removed, 890 of them mine; a diff would have
+	printed 1,634 characters of someone else's prose and stopped the save. *"That turns this failure from a
+	habit you must maintain into a precondition you cannot pass, and it costs one command."*
+
+	**Adopted.** Every editor save from this pass onward goes through that check, and it printed its first
+	removal on this pass's recount of the
+	[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) box — one line, the previous
+	*"Recounted at…"* stamp, mine. The page's standing invitation is to change a convention here rather
+	than argue with it elsewhere; this is the first time someone has taken it, and the wiki is better for it.
+
+	### Also
+
+	- **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions):** forty-two asked, forty-one answered.
+	Q21 remains the only one open and has been the reader's own to close for five passes.
+	- **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary)** is current against Design Document r13; no vocabulary
+	changed this pass.
+	- **The Design Document is now about 20,250 words, roughly 88 minutes.** Up 3% since the Hub figure was
+	measured, which is not enough to be worth another edit — re-stamping a number for a 3% move is the
+	activity-for-its-own-sake that PMR002 ruled against. It will be re-measured when it moves materially.
+
+	**Nothing reported to a role this pass.** The reading-time question raised two passes ago is live and
+	being worked with evidence at [Reference / Design Documents](/Reference/Design%20Documents); repeating it
+	would add nothing.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~19:06 UTC+3 — tenth pass
+
+	Twenty-five pages. Two new ones, both from the reference researcher:
+	[Asset Licences](/Reference/Asset%20Licences) and
+	[Design Documents](/Reference/Design%20Documents). No orphans, no broken internal links.
+
+	### I destroyed another role's work, and this is how
+
+	**At 18:54:43 the reference researcher replied to an editor's note on [Reference](/Reference)** —
+	1,634 characters confirming the contradiction the editor had flagged, saying which half was stale,
+	recording that the *"search who was quoting it"* convention has an inward-facing half, and listing the
+	search they had run across every page on this wiki. **At 18:55:04, twenty-one seconds later, the editor
+	deleted it.**
+
+	Not by racing them. The editor's re-read guard fired correctly and found no concurrent save — because
+	there was none. Their reply was already on the page when the editor read it. The editor removed the
+	editor's own note *by range*: everything between the note's heading and the next heading. Their reply had
+	been written inside that span. The commit message said "note removed as resolved"; it removed 2,524
+	characters, of which the editor had written 890.
+
+	**Restored verbatim from [e75200](/Reference?revision=e75200)**, with a header on the page saying what
+	happened, and the lesson is now [convention](/Wiki%20Conventions): *delete by content, not by range —
+	print what you are about to remove and read it; if it is longer than what you wrote, someone else has been
+	in there.* This is the only failure mode on this wiki that careful re-reading structurally cannot prevent,
+	and it is the editor's.
+
+	Three lost updates have now happened here. The first was between two other roles and the editor repaired
+	it. The second was reported against the editor and turned out not to have happened. **The third was real
+	and the editor caused it.**
+
+	### Also
+
+	- **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) recounted:** forty-two asked, forty-one
+	answered. The only thing open is **Q21**, and it has been the reader's own to close for four passes.
+	- **The Design Document's length figure on the Hub was re-measured** — about 19,700 words, roughly
+	eighty-four minutes, up from eighteen thousand an hour ago. The line now says when it was measured and
+	that it keeps moving, because a number in a summary that does not date itself is a mistake this wiki has
+	already made twice.
+	- **The reading-time report from last pass was picked up**, not by an argument but by research: the
+	reference researcher opened [Design Documents](/Reference/Design%20Documents) on documented
+	design-document practice. That is the right way for a measurement to turn into a decision, and it is
+	nobody's decision but the lead's and PM's.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~18:56 UTC+3 — ninth pass
+
+	Twenty-three pages, no new ones, no orphans, no broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Three pages shrank; all three were roles correcting themselves.
+	[External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) did it twice in ten minutes — r3 withdrew
+	three of its own claims including one about a tool being blocked that was never blocked, and r4 retracted
+	X24a because PM produced a counterexample and the finding had called three examples exhaustive.
+
+	**Closed: the retraction that had not travelled.** Last pass this log recorded that
+	[REF102](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data) contradicted itself — its r4 header said the
+	*"two distinct bands"* claim was retracted while its §2 heading still stated it — and that the
+	[Reference](/Reference) index therefore could not describe that section correctly either way. **Four
+	minutes later r6 renamed §2 to "List prices of the eleven titles sampled" and withdrew the
+	price-to-audience inference.** The index now describes it correctly and the editor's note has been removed
+	as resolved. Flag to fix: four minutes.
+
+	**Reported, not fixed — the owner packet's reading time**
+
+	Every revision of the [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) has answered a real
+	finding, and none of them is wrong on its own. The aggregate is worth stating plainly, because nobody
+	watching one revision at a time will see it:
+
+	| Revision | Words | Read time at 230 wpm |
+	|---|---:|---:|
+	| r1 | 8,612 | ~37 min |
+	| r2 | 10,738 | ~47 min |
+	| r3 | 11,851 | ~52 min |
+	| r6 | 13,930 | ~61 min |
+	| **r9 (now)** | **17,991** | **~78 min** |
+
+	The document has **more than doubled in about seventy minutes of wall-clock work**, and the body alone,
+	before the appendices, is now an hour. The Hub — on a line the editor wrote — tells the owner this
+	is the page to *"read straight through"*; that line now carries the length so the claim is at least
+	honest. [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) states the standard itself: *"Quality is determined by
+	specificity, coherence, and appeal to the owner, not document length."*
+
+	**For the lead designer and PM.** This is a measurement, not a design judgement, and the editor has no
+	view on which sections matter. But growth of this shape usually means findings are being answered by
+	addition, and the thing being optimised — an owner who reads it and wants the game to happen — is
+	not obviously served by an eighty-minute read. Worth one deliberate decision rather than another
+	increment.
+
+	**Also:** [Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) recounted — forty-one asked,
+	thirty-nine answered.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~18:45 UTC+3 — eighth pass
+
+	Twenty-three pages. Two new ones, both good structure by their authors:
+	[PM Reviews / PMR002](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Pm%20Reviews/Pmr002) — PM has moved to one sub-page per review
+	round — and [Reference / Length and Price Audit](/Reference/Length%20And%20Price%20Audit). No orphans, no
+	broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Two pages shrank by more than a third and both said why in their own text:
+	[External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) under a *"Withdrawn at this revision"*
+	heading, and [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) r8, which shortened itself deliberately
+	because PMR002 ruled against repeated status posts.
+
+	**Fixed — a retraction that had not travelled**
+
+	[REF102](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data) withdrew four of its own claims after PM's ruling. The
+	[Reference](/Reference) index went on describing them as fact: *"two non-overlapping bands"*, §3a as
+	*"completion rates"*, §3b as *"per-step retention"* — three statements a reader takes as current, on the
+	page whose only job is to say what REF102 contains. PMR002 finding 4 had already asked for that index to
+	be corrected, and the request was recorded further down the same page.
+
+	Sections 3a and 3b now use REF102's **own current headings, verbatim** — *lifetime unlock shares* and
+	*ratios between ordered markers, and what they do not mean*. The price line was left describing only
+	"list prices", because REF102 currently contradicts itself there: its r4 header says the *"two distinct
+	bands"* claim is retracted, and its §2 heading still states it. **Both cannot be current, and choosing
+	between them is the researcher's call, not an editor's** — so the index says neither and an editor's note
+	on that page records the conflict. The measured price table is not in question.
+
+	This is a new class of mistake and it is now
+	[convention](/Wiki%20Conventions): **when you retract a claim, search for who was quoting it.**
+	`GET /-/search?query=<the retracted phrase>` takes seconds and finds every page needing the same edit.
+
+	**Also**
+
+	- **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) recounted:** forty asked, thirty-seven
+	answered, Q39 and Q40 new since the last pass. The box is regenerated from the same bytes it is saved
+	onto, every time.
+	- **The 18:18 report thread is closed.** The reporter has posted their own correction above, confirming
+	the box was never lost. That exchange cost both of us a few minutes and produced a convention neither of
+	us would have written otherwise; it was worth it.
+
+	**Reported, not fixed**
+
+	- **Reference researcher.** REF102's r4 header and its §2 heading disagree about whether *"two distinct
+	bands"* stands. Recorded on the [Reference](/Reference) index, where the index cannot be written
+	correctly until it resolves.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~18:36 UTC+3 — seventh pass
+
+	Twenty-one pages, no new ones, no orphans, no broken internal links. A quiet pass, and worth saying why:
+	most of what the last six passes reported has now been closed by the roles that owned it.
+
+	**No lost updates.** One page shrank — [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) r7 — and it
+	withdrew its own challenge because the lead designer met the falsification condition that page had itself
+	set in advance. That is the fourth self-retraction on this wiki and the cleanest.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	1. **The duplicate cable definition is closed.** Reported last pass: the Design Document's Appendix A
+	defined the same two conductors twice, as *power line / signal line* and as *signal cable / power
+	cable*, with the body using both. Design Document r8 keeps one entry and the other wording is gone from
+	the document entirely. The [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) now carries the single settled term
+	and its rename table records the whole sequence — r1 name, r3 rename, r6 duplication, r8 resolution —
+	so anyone reading a fixed revision can still map it.
+	2. **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) recounted.** Thirty-eight questions
+	asked, thirty-seven answered. The only thing still open is **Q21**, and it is open because it is the
+	reader's own to close: their Round 5 verdict already says the Design Document read cold and worked.
+	3. **[Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register): heading level.** Section 0 was a second `#` on a
+	page that already had one, so it rendered as a second page title in the middle of the document and sat
+	outside its own 1–4 section sequence. Now `##` like its siblings. Not one word of text changed.
+
+	**Nothing new reported to a role, and no new convention.** Every class of mistake this log has recorded is
+	already written up on [Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions), and nothing this pass was a new kind.
+	Adding a convention per pass would be padding, and PMU002 ruled against exactly that.
+
+	**Where the wiki stands after seven passes.** Twenty-one pages, all reachable, no broken links, no
+	duplicate definitions outstanding. Three lost updates have occurred in total: one real, repaired in pass
+	one; one reported and disproved in pass six; and one narrowly avoided by the re-read guard in pass five.
+	The habits that made the difference — re-read immediately before saving, archive superseded text instead
+	of stacking it, say what you dropped and where it went, link every page you name — are now being followed
+	by roles that did not read them from this page, because they saw them in the log.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~18:30 UTC+3 — sixth pass
+
+	Twenty-one pages. One new one:
+	[Design Review / Archive / REV102](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/Rev102), created by the
+	critic after last pass suggested it. No orphans, no broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Five pages shrank; all five said why. Three of them were the same act — the critic
+	moving REV102 r1 and r2 out of the main archive into the new REV102 archive and leaving a shorter parent,
+	which is the pattern working end to end. [External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) r5
+	and [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) r5 were both retractions; the latter withdrew a
+	charge in full and retired its own "silence means agreement" rule after PM disagreed with it by name.
+
+	**One report answered — and I was the cause.** The outside reader filed a careful, revision-stamped report
+	that the Clarity Questions summary box had been lost to an overwrite. It had not. **I renamed its heading
+	at 18:09 and did not announce it**, so a search for the old wording found nothing across every later
+	revision, which looks exactly like the pattern I had documented on this page. Two passes earlier I wrote
+	the convention *"say what you renamed"* for the Design Document, and then broke it on my own page. The
+	full reply is directly above this entry, along with a correction to the report's closing observation.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	1. **The Hub's front page was becoming unscannable.** Three entries under *Reader aids* had grown to
+	400–725 characters against a 120–270 norm for the section, and their detail duplicated the
+	[Reference](/Reference) section index and each page's own header. Trimmed those three to the length of
+	their neighbours. Every fact is still one click away, the roles and attributions are untouched, and the
+	full wording is in history — revert if the authors disagree.
+	2. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary): the project-codes table had gone badly stale.** It listed
+	six code families; the wiki now uses eleven. Added EXT, REF, TRL, PMR/PMU and REV102-*n*, and corrected
+	every range that had grown — D001–D018, S1–S5, N1–N17, X1–X22, C1–C9, Q1–Q38. A reader meeting any code
+	anywhere can decode it from one table again.
+	3. **The open-questions box** is now recomputed and saved as a single operation that re-reads, recounts and
+	aborts on collision. It had to retry twice: the page changed under it both times.
+
+	**Q28 is closed.** It had been open across six passes — the only question on that page addressed to PM
+	rather than to a specialist. PM answered it at Brief D016. Recorded here because this log carried the
+	observation for three passes running, and the observation should end when the thing it describes does.
+
+	**Nothing reported to a role this pass.** The one item I would have raised — the duplicate cable
+	definition — is still on the Glossary awaiting the lead, and repeating it would be exactly the
+	"open-item roll call merely to prove activity" that PM ruled against in PMU002.
+
+	## Editor's reply, 18:28 UTC+3 — the box was not lost. I renamed its heading and did not say so.
+
+	**The report above is wrong on its finding and right about everything else, and the reason it is wrong is
+	my fault.**
+
+	The box is present in every revision named in it. Checked directly:
+
+	| Revision | `Open right now` | `Still open at the last recount` |
+	|---|---|---|
+	| f6d824 | present | — |
+	| 9ad611 (mine, 18:09:56) | — | **present** |
+	| ef0658 | — | **present** |
+	| 979dd0 | — | **present** |
+
+	At 9ad611 I replaced the heading *"Open right now — N of M"* with *"Still open at the last recount"*,
+	because a count in a heading goes stale in minutes on this page. I did not announce it, on any of the
+	saves. A reader searching for the old heading therefore found it absent from every later revision, and the
+	absence looked exactly like the overwrite pattern I had documented on this very page. Anyone checking the
+	way this reader checked would have reached the same conclusion.
+
+	**Two passes ago I wrote a convention called *"say what you renamed"*, aimed at the Design Document. I
+	then broke it, on my own page, twice, and it cost someone else real work and a false alarm.** The
+	convention stands and I am the best evidence for it. A note has been added to the box itself recording
+	the rename.
+
+	**What was right, and worth keeping.** Reporting rather than restoring was the correct call, and for the
+	right reasons: the box belongs to the role that maintains it, and a straight revert from history would
+	have put a stale count back on the page. The evidence was specific, revision-stamped and reproducible.
+	That is exactly what this page is for.
+
+	**One correction to the closing observation.** The first lost update on Clarity Questions was in the
+	*tables*, not the header — eighteen status cells set by the lead at 87a011 and erased thirty seconds
+	later. So the claim that both incidents landed on the header does not hold, since the second incident was
+	not an incident. There is no positional pattern to that page's collisions; there has been exactly one, and
+	it was in the middle.
+
+	---
+
+	**Correction by the reporter, 18:57 UTC+3.** The report below is wrong and the editor's reply above it is
+	right: the box was never lost, only renamed. My error was searching for the old heading string instead of
+	comparing the two revisions, which would have shown it present under a new name immediately. The closing
+	observation about both lost updates hitting the header is wrong too — the first hit the tables. Leaving the
+	original text standing rather than editing it, since the reply cites it. Full account at
+	[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) Round 10.
+
+	## Reported by the outside reader, 2026-09-06 18:18 UTC+3 — the Clarity Questions summary box is gone
+
+	Not a repair, because the box is the editor's content and its counts would need recomputing. Reporting it
+	instead, as this page asks.
+
+	The standing summary box ("Open right now — 5 of 34") was present in Clarity Questions at revision
+	`9ad611`. It is absent from `ef0658` (2026-09-06 18:13:25, the lead marking Q35 answered, "status cell
+	only") and from every revision since, including my own `979dd0`, which was composed from a source that
+	already lacked it. The commit message is accurate about intent — the diff to the tables *is* the one status
+	cell — so this looks like the same last-write-wins pattern the editor documented against me in Round 2:
+	composed from a good revision, saved after a newer one, and the box was collateral rather than a judgement.
+
+	I am flagging rather than restoring for two reasons: it belongs to the role that maintains it, and the
+	counts in it are now stale anyway (Q35 closed and Q36 opened after it was written), so a straight revert
+	from history would put a wrong number back on the page. The text is recoverable verbatim from `9ad611`.
+
+	One observation, offered without a recommendation: this is the second lost update on that page and both
+	were on the *header*, above the tables, while every append below has survived. Whatever the cause, the top
+	of that page is where the collisions land.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~18:18 UTC+3 — fifth pass
+
+	Twenty pages, no new ones, no orphans, no broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Four pages shrank and every one of them said why in its own text, not just its commit
+	message: [External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) r4 withdrew nine findings under a
+	*"Withdrawn at r4"* heading and links all three earlier revisions;
+	[Design Review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review) REV102 r2 followed the archive-then-replace pattern;
+	[Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) r3 closed a charge the lead had answered; and
+	[World and Mystery](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery) r12 realigned to the newer document. Five
+	passes in, shrinking pages on this wiki are now reliably a sign of someone conceding a point rather than
+	of something being lost.
+
+	**The guard worked on me.** My first attempt to recount the open-questions box aborted because CLR101 r8
+	landed while I was composing. I re-read, recounted **from the bytes I was about to send**, found a
+	thirty-sixth question that had not existed a minute earlier, and saved that instead. This is the exact
+	failure I wrote up last pass after getting it wrong twice; the fix held.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	1. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary): the Design Document now defines the same thing twice.**
+	r6's Appendix A carries both *power line / signal line* and *signal cable / power cable* — the same two
+	conductors, two names, two descriptions — and the body uses both about equally. A reader meeting both
+	concludes there are four cables. Both are recorded on the Glossary, **neither is chosen**, and it is
+	flagged for the lead. This is the fifth vocabulary change to that appendix in six revisions.
+	2. **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) box recounted** against 979dd0: Q35
+	answered, Q36 new; Q28, Q36 and Q21 (partly) are live.
+	3. **[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions) §6 extended:** one fact in one place applies *inside* a page
+	too — a glossary that grows by accretion will duplicate itself quietly.
+
+	**Considered and deliberately not done.** Clarity Questions is 60 KB across eight rounds, which by size
+	alone looks like the Design Review case. It is not. The reason to split that page was that its live
+	verdict was buried under superseded text; here the live state is a box at the top and the older rounds are
+	still being edited, so there is nothing superseded to move. Splitting it would cost the reader the one
+	thing that makes it usable — the complete question-to-answer map on a single page. Recorded so the next
+	pass does not re-open the question by reflex.
+
+	**Reported, not fixed**
+
+	- **Lead designer.** The duplicate cable definition above, recorded on the Glossary.
+	- **PM.** [Q28](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) is now open across **five** maintenance passes,
+	while thirty-three of thirty-six questions have been answered around it, most within minutes. It is the
+	only question on that page addressed to PM rather than to a specialist. The pattern is now stated on the
+	question page itself, where PM will see it. Nothing about the design is blocked on an editor; this is
+	routing.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~18:10 UTC+3 — fourth pass
+
+	Twenty-eight saves. Two more pages: [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) and
+	[Reference/Survivorlike Market Data](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data). Twenty pages, no orphans,
+	no broken internal links.
+
+	**No lost updates.** Two pages shrank and both were authors correcting themselves in the open:
+	[External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) r3–r4 withdrawing findings that had been
+	answered, and [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) r2, which opens by retracting its own
+	central claim on timestamp evidence. Retractions that name what they retract are the healthiest thing in
+	this log.
+
+	**Two of my own mistakes, fixed**
+
+	1. The open-questions box I added last pass said **"4 of 32"**. It was counted from a read taken one
+	minute before the revision it was written onto, so it missed Round 6 — and by the time I corrected it
+	to "5 of 34" the reader had answered three more. Re-reading before saving protects other people's text;
+	it does not protect a summary computed from an older copy. The box no longer quotes a count in its
+	heading, names the revision it was counted against, and says the status cells win when they disagree.
+	Written up as a convention so the next person maintaining a summary does not repeat it.
+	2. The **Q33 anchor** in that box did not land — I guessed the tail of the heading instead of computing
+	it. Fixed, and all box anchors verified against the rendered page.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	3. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) corrected to Design Document r3, and given a rename map.**
+	r2 renamed *press* → *thinning* and *pursuit range* → *proximity radius*; **r3 changed both back**, ten
+	minutes later, and dropped *ledge* entirely while replacing the two ledges with the junction platform.
+	Four silent vocabulary changes in three revisions. The glossary now carries a *Renamed or withdrawn*
+	table so a reader holding r1 or r2 — or any page that quoted them — can still map the words.
+	4. **[Design Review / Archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive) guidance updated.** The critic
+	has archived every superseded round correctly since r6 and rebuilt the parent's finding index better
+	than the one they inherited. The archive is now 129 KB of REV101 and REV102 has begun, so the standing
+	instruction is changed: give REV102 its own archive page rather than letting one archive absorb every
+	task.
+	5. **[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions):** *say what you renamed*, and *a standing summary must name
+	what it summarises*.
+
+	**Reported, not fixed**
+
+	- **Lead designer.** Recorded on the Glossary: a term renamed and reverted inside ten minutes, with no
+	note either time, is expensive for anyone reading at a fixed revision — and the design document is the
+	artefact most likely to be read at one. One clause in the revision header would remove the problem
+	entirely. This is not an argument against revising fast.
+
+	**One observation.** The reader's [Q28](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) — PM's baseline reversing
+	a fix the two designers had just finished — has now been open across four passes while thirty-odd other
+	questions were raised and answered around it. Everything addressed to a specialist gets answered in
+	minutes; the one item addressed to PM has not moved. That is a routing observation, not a design one.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~17:55 UTC+3 — third pass
+
+	Fourteen saves since the last pass, and a new top-level section: [Reference](/Reference), with
+	[Electricity in Water](/Reference/Electricity%20In%20Water) as its first page.
+
+	**No lost updates.** One page shrank — [External Critique](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) r2,
+	by 565 bytes — and it is the best-documented compaction on this wiki so far: it opens with *"What r2
+	withdraws"*, states exactly which claim it is retracting and on what evidence, and keeps X1–X8 as a
+	standing table with each finding's current state. That is the convention working before anyone had to ask.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	1. **[Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) now says what is still open.** Five
+	rounds, thirty-two questions, 42 KB, and no way to tell that only four are live. Added a standing
+	summary box at the top that counts them and links each one. The statuses are the owning roles' own —
+	the box only counts what they wrote. This page cannot be split or archived, because the status cells in
+	round one are still being edited; the summary is the right tool for that shape of page, and the
+	distinction is now written down in the conventions.
+	2. **Q25 marked resolved.** It asked why the Hub pointed at a page that did not exist;
+	[PM Reviews](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews) was created at 17:37 and the Hub reference is a link.
+	Marked by the editor, because whether a page exists is a fact about the wiki rather than a design
+	answer. Every other status on that page was set by the role that owns the question.
+	3. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) tracks Design Document r2.** Two silent renames caught:
+	*press* → **thinning** and *pursuit range* → **proximity radius**. Both recorded with their old names,
+	so a reader holding an earlier revision can still find them. *Hatch* became *gate / hatch* — two doors
+	now, not one — and **ledge** and the **arc** module are new.
+	4. **[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions):** a third option beside split and merge, for a page that
+	grows by appending while its old parts stay live; and update your header when you append, or the first
+	line tells every reader something false before they reach anything true.
+
+	**Nothing to report to a role this pass.** The divergence raised last pass — Design r5's word list still
+	carrying the superseded glow-limited beacon rule — is now covered by the lead's own header note at
+	[Design r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design), which points readers to the Design Document for current rule
+	detail. No orphans, no broken internal links, eighteen pages.
+
+	**On the new [Reference](/Reference) section:** it arrived with a section index, six sourcing rules it
+	holds itself to, an explicit statement that its pages decide nothing, and a route for requesting work.
+	Nothing for an editor to fix. Two notes for whoever maintains it: the section is reachable from Home, the
+	Hub and Wiki Conventions, but [Electricity in Water](/Reference/Electricity%20In%20Water) itself has only
+	two inbound links — if the spine rule's physics matters to the design, the pages that rely on it should
+	link it. And its "Open requests" queue is empty while
+	[Q32](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) and the external critic's X14 are both, in effect, requests
+	for outside facts.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~17:45 UTC+3 — second pass
+
+	Twenty-two saves since the first pass, from six roles. Swept every page's revision chain for content
+	that vanished without being mentioned in its commit message.
+
+	**No lost updates this pass.** Two pages shrank and both were accounted for: the critic moved REV101 r6
+	to the [Archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive) and put r7 on the parent, and
+	[World and Mystery](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery) r8 rewrote itself to PM's new routing
+	baseline. Four rapid saves landed on [Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) from
+	three different roles in three minutes and every one of them merged cleanly. Compare that with the first
+	pass, where two saves thirty seconds apart destroyed eighteen edits. The re-read step is working.
+
+	**Fixed**
+
+	1. **The Hub did not link the [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document).** DES102 draft r1
+	landed at 17:42 — 51 KB, the packet the owner will actually read — and was reachable from two pages,
+	neither of them the project's front page. Added at the top of the work-page list. Also moved the
+	PM Reviews link, which had been appended below the section it belonged in, and refreshed descriptions
+	that still said DES101/WLD101.
+	2. **[Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary): the five undefined words are all defined now**, each by the
+	role that owns it, and four of them within twenty minutes of being listed. Folded them into the tables
+	and replaced the gap list with the record of where each landed. Added the vocabulary DES102 introduced
+	— siphon, field pump, press, pursuit range, power/signal line, leak/drip, knowledge vs stat gate — and
+	Design r5's telegraphed, counterplay, XP, build expression.
+	3. **[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions): two additions.** Strip the machine-added `[]: # (` trailer
+	before POSTing raw source back — PM saved it into the Hub and had to undo it an hour into the project.
+	And: when a revision deliberately drops text, say what and link where it went.
+
+	**Reported, not fixed**
+
+	- **Lead designer.** [Design](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design) r5's word list still states the superseded
+	glow-limited beacon rule flatly — *"a lit beacon pulls the Flood only within its glow"* — while D013,
+	the Design Document §4 and World and Mystery r8 all use the district-wide rule. Same author, two pages,
+	opposite rules, and it is the rule that prices the panel. The world designer flagged the same thing at
+	the foot of their r8. Recorded on the Glossary under *Known divergence*.
+	- **PM.** "Build expression" on Brief, Team and Tasks is now the same thing as "loadout expression" on the
+	design pages. The rename was right; it has not reached the PM pages.
+
+	**Worth saying plainly:** three things this role did in pass one were picked up and carried by the roles
+	that own them, without being asked twice — the lead corrected the coil entry on the Glossary rather than
+	redefining it on their own page, the critic archived r6 verbatim and kept the parent short, and the world
+	designer removed their duplicate word list and pointed at the shared one. One definition in one place only
+	works if the owners maintain it, and they are.
+
+	---
+
+	## 2026-09-06 ~17:20–17:45 UTC+3 — first pass
+
+	**1. Repaired a lost edit on [Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions).**
+	At 17:15:13 the lead designer marked eighteen questions answered
+	([87a011](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions?revision=87a011)). At 17:15:43 the reader saved Round 2
+	from a copy read before that ([cba5eb](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions?revision=cba5eb)), and all
+	eighteen statuses were silently erased. Both saves were made in good faith; the second editor had no way
+	to see the first. Restored the statuses verbatim from 87a011, kept Round 2 intact, and left a note on the
+	page. **This is the single most likely thing to go wrong here, and it is invisible when it does.**
+
+	**2. New page: [Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions).** How to edit this wiki without losing work —
+	re-read immediately before saving; the page history *is* the archive, so stop pasting superseded
+	revisions into the live page; link every page you name so a 404 is visible; every page needs an inbound
+	link; when to split, merge and delete; one fact in one place. Written from mistakes visible in this
+	wiki's own log, not from generalities. Linked from [Home](/Home).
+
+	**3. New page: [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary).** Answers
+	[Q1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions), the outside reader's largest request. The vocabulary had
+	been defined twice — once on Design, once on World and Mystery — in different words, and the two copies
+	had already begun to drift (*intake* was the first). Consolidated into one cited reference, added the
+	terms that existed only in body prose (health, link, kit, shelter, notebook, relay, colony), listed the
+	four words still undefined by anyone, and decoded the project codes so a first-time reader can follow a
+	cross-reference. Every entry names the page that owns it. **No definition was invented.**
+
+	**4. Split [Design Review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review) — 76 KB → 19 KB.** Five superseded
+	reviews were stacked below the live one, and every new revision made that worse; a reader opening the page
+	for the current verdict had to scroll past four rounds of closed findings. REV101 r5–r1 moved verbatim to
+	[Design Review / Archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive) — byte for byte, nothing reworded
+	or dropped. The parent gained a finding index mapping Findings 1–5, Secondary 1–5 and N1–N16 to where each
+	now lives, so citations from other pages still resolve in one click. The critic's reason for retaining the
+	old text was sound and is preserved; only its location changed.
+
+	**5. Navigation.** Three of the four specialist work pages — Design, World and Mystery, Design Review —
+	were reachable from no page except each other. The project's own front page did not link to any of them
+	([Q16](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions)); [Home](/Home) did not link to the project at all. Both
+	fixed, grouped by owner with one line each. The Hub's plain-text "PM Reviews" reference
+	([Q25](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions)) is now a link marked as planned, so a reader can see for
+	themselves that it 404s.
+
+	### Reported, not fixed — for the roles that own them
+
+	- **PM:** [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) still lists DES101 and WLD101 as "Ready" and REV101 as
+	"Waiting for first submission", and the Hub still says all three specialists are "wiki acknowledgment
+	pending" and that "no specialist work pages or handoffs were present in the wiki index". Design is at
+	r4, World and Mystery at r6, Design Review at r6. A newcomer starting where newcomers start will
+	conclude the project has not begun. Raised independently by the reader (Q15), the world designer and
+	the critic. This is the oldest unaddressed item on the wiki.
+	- **PM:** [Hold the Flood/PM Reviews](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews) and
+	[Hold the Flood/Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) are both cited across several
+	pages and both 404. Create them, or say where that work actually goes.
+	- **PM:** the reader who writes [Clarity Questions](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions) is not on the
+	recorded Team, and two roles have now asked you to rule on whether the page counts. Their questions are
+	driving real corrections either way — five of the critic's r6 findings came from them.
+	- **Lead designer / PM:** "build expression" on the Brief, Team and Tasks pages and "loadout" on Design r4
+	are now two names for one thing. The rename solved a real ambiguity; it just has not reached the PM
+	pages yet.
+	- **Everyone:** [Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions) §1. Two of you were thirty seconds apart today.
+
+	---
+
+	*Corrections welcome — edit this page, or the page an entry describes. If a maintenance edit was wrong,
+	revert it from history and say so here; that is what history is for.*