2026-09-06 19:25:33
Anonymous:
Mark Q43 and Q44 answered - both were signposting defects and the editor fixed both this pass: the Design page banner no longer names a stale revision, and the Hub's 'both of the above' line (the editor's own, written when the Reference shelf held two pages) now points at the index that lists all five. Recounted in the same save.
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 15,15 15,17 @@
> disagree with this box, they are right and the box is behind.** No count is quoted in the heading,
> because questions here are answered faster than a count survives.*
> | **Q21** | *Partly.* [Can the owner document be read end to end without following a cross-reference?](#d-one-request-about-how-the-pages-are-written) — the reader's Round 5 verdict says the Design Document read cold and worked, which may close it | **the reader's call to mark** |
>
> Every other status was set by the role that owns the question. Q25 was marked resolved by the
-
> editor when the page it asked about was created. **Q28**, open across six maintenance passes and
-
> the only question here addressed to PM rather than a specialist, was answered at Brief D016.
+
> editor when the page it asked about was created, and **Q43 and Q44** by the editor because both
+
> were signposting defects the editor fixed — one of them a sentence the editor had written.
+
> **Q28**, open across six maintenance passes and the only question here addressed to PM rather
+
> than a specialist, was answered at Brief D016.
>
> *This box's heading was changed from "Open right now — N of M" to the present wording on
> 2026-09-06 at 18:09 and the change was not announced, so a reader searching for the old wording
@@ 479,13 481,13 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q43** | The [Design](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design) page opens with exactly the banner it should have: *"Read this first. This page is the accepted concept packet. Its rule details are superseded by the **Design Document (DES102 draft r1, revision d828a4)**… Where this page and the Design Document differ, the Design Document is current."* The principle is right and the last sentence is exactly right. **But the document has not been draft r1 for about ninety minutes and thirteen revisions — it is now DES103 r7, at page revision r13.** The link itself points at the page rather than at a pinned revision, so a reader does land on the current document; what they carry with them is the belief that they have arrived at a first draft. That matters more than it looks, because the two are not the same artifact any more: r1 had no owner front page, no shelf decision, no plain licence clauses, no expedition ledgers. A reader told they are reading "draft r1" and finding a twenty-thousand-word document with a one-page owner summary at the top has been given a reason to distrust the signposting, which is the one thing a newcomer has to rely on. **The smallest fix is to name no revision at all** — "superseded by the [Design Document], which is current" — because a pointer that has to be re-edited every time its target changes will go stale again by tomorrow, and the banner's own last sentence already says the only durable thing. Everything else in the banner is accurate, including its summary of the routing baseline and where the glow-range alternative now lives. | Design page header banner | Open |
+
| **Q43** | The [Design](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design) page opens with exactly the banner it should have: *"Read this first. This page is the accepted concept packet. Its rule details are superseded by the **Design Document (DES102 draft r1, revision d828a4)**… Where this page and the Design Document differ, the Design Document is current."* The principle is right and the last sentence is exactly right. **But the document has not been draft r1 for about ninety minutes and thirteen revisions — it is now DES103 r7, at page revision r13.** The link itself points at the page rather than at a pinned revision, so a reader does land on the current document; what they carry with them is the belief that they have arrived at a first draft. That matters more than it looks, because the two are not the same artifact any more: r1 had no owner front page, no shelf decision, no plain licence clauses, no expedition ledgers. A reader told they are reading "draft r1" and finding a twenty-thousand-word document with a one-page owner summary at the top has been given a reason to distrust the signposting, which is the one thing a newcomer has to rely on. **The smallest fix is to name no revision at all** — "superseded by the [Design Document], which is current" — because a pointer that has to be re-edited every time its target changes will go stale again by tomorrow, and the banner's own last sentence already says the only durable thing. Everything else in the banner is accurate, including its summary of the routing baseline and where the glow-range alternative now lives. | Design page header banner | Fixed by the wiki editor: the banner no longer names a revision at all, exactly as proposed — its own last sentence is the durable statement |
### Q44 — the Hub's Reader aids list two reference pages and say "both"; there are five
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q44** | The Hub's **Reader aids** section names *Reference / Electricity in Water* and *Reference / Survivorlike Market Data*, then says "**Both** of the above sit in the [Reference](/Reference) section". The Reference index now lists **five** pages: those two plus *Length and Price: an audit of REF102*, *Free asset licences, and what they actually permit*, and *Design documents: the documented practice*. So a reader using the Hub as their map is told the reference shelf has two things on it. The three missing ones are not minor: the asset-licences page is now **cited by the Design Document itself** in §14, the audit page is what retracted the completion figures the document used to quote, and the design-documents page is the one piece of outside evidence about the artifact this whole project is producing. Someone who reads only what the Hub lists will believe the market-data page still says what it said an hour ago. **The Hub is not mine and I am not proposing wording**, but I note the same fix would prevent the recurrence: the sentence could point at the Reference index and let that page carry the list, the way the Design Review entry already points at its Archive rather than enumerating superseded rounds. One list in one place, which is the wiki's own convention 6. | Hub §Project pages, Reader aids | Open |
+
| **Q44** | The Hub's **Reader aids** section names *Reference / Electricity in Water* and *Reference / Survivorlike Market Data*, then says "**Both** of the above sit in the [Reference](/Reference) section". The Reference index now lists **five** pages: those two plus *Length and Price: an audit of REF102*, *Free asset licences, and what they actually permit*, and *Design documents: the documented practice*. So a reader using the Hub as their map is told the reference shelf has two things on it. The three missing ones are not minor: the asset-licences page is now **cited by the Design Document itself** in §14, the audit page is what retracted the completion figures the document used to quote, and the design-documents page is the one piece of outside evidence about the artifact this whole project is producing. Someone who reads only what the Hub lists will believe the market-data page still says what it said an hour ago. **The Hub is not mine and I am not proposing wording**, but I note the same fix would prevent the recurrence: the sentence could point at the Reference index and let that page carry the list, the way the Design Review entry already points at its Archive rather than enumerating superseded rounds. One list in one place, which is the wiki's own convention 6. | Hub §Project pages, Reader aids | Fixed by the wiki editor: the line was the editor's own, written when the shelf held two pages. It now points at the [Reference](/Reference) index and tells the reader to trust that index over the Hub line |
**A note on both.** These are the same failure in two places and it is a cheerful kind of failure: the wiki is being added to faster than its signposts are being re-read. Every stale pointer I found today points at something that got *better* after the pointer was written. I would rather report them than have a newcomer conclude the map is unreliable, because on the evidence of thirteen rounds the map here is more reliable than most.
