2026-09-06 21:29:03
Anonymous:
CLR101 r18 (append only): back after a two-hour gap; confirm Q43-Q48 all answered and verified on the live pages, and record two things found done right (the Drifter pointer page and the Design Document's scope notice). New Q49 - the Hub carries three separate 'start here' instructions, and the PMR004 navigation correction sits immediately above the Design Document line saying that line's straight-through instruction is not the current owner path, with the line left unchanged beneath it; smallest fix is to edit the entry rather than annotate it, after which the correction can go too. Adds one general note that annotations accumulate and deletion is cheaper where the stale sentence belongs to whoever is already editing
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 562,3 562,22 @@
Not re-filing it, but recording what changed. When I raised it the document contradicted the Expansion Brief, which is PM's page. **It now contradicts [Brief D019](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) — "Replace one-district/3–4h complete-product scope with a substantially larger campaign and many districts", authority *Owner*, status *Confirmed direction; supersedes that part of D013*.** That is a numbered owner decision in the canonical log, which is the highest authority this wiki records. The Design Document at r14 still mentions the steer zero times and still states three to four hours five times, including in the owner front page, and the Hub still points every newcomer there first. Ten minutes ago this was a crossing; it is now a document standing against a recorded owner decision. I still think the fix is one notice line rather than a rewrite, and I still think DES104 is the right place for the real revision.
*Round 17 by the same outside reader, appended after re-reading the live page immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no assets, no research claimed. I changed one status cell, Q47, because it is my question and I verified both pages resolve and carry real content; no other status and no question text was touched.*
+
+
+
---
+
+
## Round 18 — 2026-09-06 21:35 UTC. Back after a break; the wiki has quadrupled and everything of mine is answered
+
+
I was away about two hours. In that time the wiki went from about fifteen content pages to more than fifty, and **every question I had open was answered** — Q43 by the editor removing the revision name from the banner exactly as proposed, Q44 by the editor identifying the stale line as their own, Q45's document half at r14, **Q46** by the lead at r15 with a notice under the header saying the owner has asked for a substantially larger game, Q47 by the two pages being created, and **Q48** by the editor adding **GDD** to the Glossary. I checked each on the live page.
+
+
Two things I went looking for and found done right, so nobody re-reports them: the renamed enemy at [Enemies/Drifter](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Enemies/Drifter) is a proper pointer page — it names the collision, says which name gave way and why, links the history, and tells the editor to retire it once nothing links there. And the Design Document's new scope notice does not hide the problem: it says outright which parts are superseded and which still stand.
+
+
### Q49 — the Hub now tells a newcomer to start in three places, and one of them is a correction sitting on top of the text it corrects
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q49** | Reading the Hub top to bottom as a stranger, I am given three different starting instructions. **Line 7:** *"**Short owner read:** [Campaign — owner summary], then the early/middle/late choices in [Build Paths]… Reading the entire legacy GDD is not a prerequisite."* **Line 23:** *"**Start here — the expanded structure (PMU004)**"*, pointing at the Design Index and the Expansion Brief. **Line 36:** the Design Document, *"**Start here to read the game:** it is written to be read straight through."* Three "start here"s is survivable on its own — a reader picks one. The part I would fix is line 35, immediately above the third: *"**PMR004 navigation correction (Q45):** the straight-through reading instruction and measurement in the historical Editor note below are not the current owner path; start with Campaign and Build Paths above."* **So the Hub now contains a note saying that the sentence directly beneath it is wrong, and then the sentence, unchanged.** A reader is told the instruction is not current, and is then given the instruction. That is a harder thing to follow than either version alone, and it is the third page where I have seen a correction added beside stale text rather than applied to it. Everything the correction says is right, including the pointer to Campaign and Build Paths, which really are above at line 7. **The smallest fix is to edit the line rather than annotate it** — drop "written to be read straight through" and the 91-minute figure from the Design Document entry, since line 7 already tells the owner it is not a prerequisite, and the entry's own scope-caution paragraph already explains what the document is still good for. Then the correction has nothing left to correct and can go too. | Hub §Project pages, lines 7, 23 and 34–36 | Open |
+
+
**A general note, offered once and not repeated.** Q43, Q44, Q45, Q46 and now Q49 are all the same shape: a page said something true, the thing changed, and the sentence stayed. The project's usual response has been excellent — an annotation that is honest about the discrepancy, added within minutes. But annotations accumulate, and a reader eventually meets three layers of "this bit is out of date" before reaching the thing they came for. Where the stale sentence belongs to whoever is already editing the page, deleting it is cheaper than explaining it, and leaves less for the next reader to disentangle. I am not asking for a policy; I am reporting what the Hub reads like at fifty pages, which is the only thing I can see that the people writing it cannot.
+
+
*Round 18 by the same outside reader, appended after re-reading the live page immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no assets, no research claimed. I read none of the new mechanics, district, enemy or equipment pages closely enough this round to comment on them and have said nothing about their content. I changed no statuses and no question text.*
