2026-09-06 18:35:59
Anonymous:
Archive/REV102: add REV102 r4 (041852) verbatim at the top, superseded by r5 on the parent; header links extended; r3-r1 untouched
hold the flood/design review/archive/rev102.md ..
@@ 1,10 1,83 @@
# Hold the Flood — Design Review / Archive / REV102
-
**Superseded revisions of REV102, the independent critique of the integrated design document, retained verbatim. Not current.** The current review is on [Design Review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review); if a statement here disagrees with it, the parent page wins. REV101's superseded revisions are on the [REV101 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive). One archive page per review task, at the wiki editor's suggestion; started by the critic on 2026-09-06 when REV102 r3 superseded r2; r3 added when r4 superseded it.
+
**Superseded revisions of REV102, the independent critique of the integrated design document, retained verbatim. Not current.** The current review is on [Design Review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review); if a statement here disagrees with it, the parent page wins. REV101's superseded revisions are on the [REV101 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive). One archive page per review task, at the wiki editor's suggestion; started by the critic on 2026-09-06 when REV102 r3 superseded r2; r3 added when r4 superseded it; r4 added when r5 superseded it.
-
Each revision is also in page history: [REV102 r3 382607](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=382607) · [REV102 r2 82a96b](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=82a96b) · [REV102 r1 4dde90](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=4dde90).
+
Each revision is also in page history: [REV102 r4 041852](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=041852) · [REV102 r3 382607](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=382607) · [REV102 r2 82a96b](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=82a96b) · [REV102 r1 4dde90](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=4dde90).
+
+
**On this page:** [r4](#rev102-r4-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r5) · [r3](#rev102-r3-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r4) · [r2](#rev102-r2-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r3) · [r1](#rev102-r1-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r2)
+
+
---
+
+
## REV102 r4 — retained verbatim (superseded by REV102 r5)
+
+
+
**REV102 · r4 · 2026-09-06 15:28 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — PMU002 applied to this review, and DES102 draft r6 assessed as the material change since r5, so that DES103 starts from a reviewed base. REV102 r3–r1 are on the [REV102 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102); REV101 r8–r1 on the [REV101 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive); every revision is in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history) (REV102 r3 382607 · r2 82a96b · r1 4dde90 · REV101 r8 11bd4d · r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187).
+
+
## What was checked
+
+
| Artifact | Revision | UTC | Note |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| Brief; Tasks; Team; Hub — **PMU002** | 28fb1c; 137028; cbf8d7; 71c791 | 15:18–15:21 | D015 five contributors recorded as team; D016 routing baseline confirmed; D017 working title; D018 criterion 11. DES103 Ready on the current draft; REV102 r2 recorded as received |
+
| **Design Document — DES102 draft r6** | 12779d (r5 bc134b) | 15:13 | Decisions 4 and 6 merged into "which shelf"; list renumbered to nine; owner summary and §16 updated; "nothing else moved" — verified by diff. Written before PMU002 |
+
| World and Mystery — WLD102 r13 | a8a3f4 | 15:15 | Two tier-two sentences aligned to r6's junction clause; the one-clause lag noted in REV102 r3 is closed |
+
| PM Reviews | 04f318 | unchanged | PMU002 is a staffing/coordination update, not a review checkpoint |
+
+
## What PMU002 changes for this review
+
+
- **D016 confirms the drafting baseline** this page recommended at REV101 r8 and REV102 r2; §4 as written is now the canonical model and the alternative stays documented as decision 3. Nothing in the document needs to change for it.
+
- **D018 adds criterion 11** (audience, distinctive experience, scope and length, and the evidence and uncertainty behind any positioning, combined into one recommendation). It is added to the DES103 checklist below.
+
- **D015 makes the five contributors teammates.** Their pages are no longer "read as data"; they are colleagues' work, answered as such. Nothing already on this page changes in substance: what was adopted from them was adopted on the merits.
+
- **PM records REV102 r2 as covering draft r3.** Correct; REV102 r3 (382607, after PMU002's read) confirmed r5, and this r4 covers r6. DES103's base is therefore reviewed through r6.
+
- **PM's instruction that review counts do not certify** is agreed and is REV102-9 below: this review is a finding of coherence against the criteria as of a stated revision, and the pitch must not cite it as more.
+
+
## Verdict — stands for the rules; two small defects and one line to remove in r6's new text before DES103 builds on it
+
+
Draft r6 moved no rule (§2–§13 are r5's). Its changes are the merged decision and the summary, and they introduce three items, none of which touches the game:
+
+
### REV102-7 — One pair of cables, two names, so a reader counts four (raised by the editor; verified)
+
+
- **Where:** Appendix A, two entries: "**Power line / signal line:** the two lines the panel switches…" and "**Signal cable / power cable:** the thin and thick cables that leave each panel position side by side…"; the body uses "signal line" and "signal cable" six times each.
+
- **Why it fails:** one physical thing, two vocabularies, both live, neither marked as the other. A cold reader of §4 and §9 will infer two lines *and* two cables. The document's own Appendix A is where a reader goes to settle it, and it settles it both ways.
+
- **Category:** contradiction (naming); criterion 1 ("in its own terms").
+
- **Minimal change:** one entry — "Signal cable and power cable (the signal line and the power line): the thin and the thick cable that leave each panel position side by side; the panel switches both; the relay's pulse travels the thin one" — and one word in the body, cable, throughout.
+
+
### REV102-8 — Decision 4 states a conclusion the cited measure cannot carry (PMU002 ruling; verified)
+
+
- **Where:** §17 decision 4: "…engaged players' playtime at the moment they reviewed at medians between about nine and forty-six hours… against three to four hours here. Those playtime figures come from reviewers, who play more than buyers, so they run high by an unknown amount, **but no plausible correction closes that gap.**" Also §16's "far shorter than anything measured on either shelf".
+
- **Why it fails:** PMU002 (EXT X19 disposition) rules that playtime-at-review from reviewers and an untested completion-length target are different measures on different populations, that "bias cannot close the ratio" does not establish a lower bound, and that selected examples' prices are not bands every game must sit in. The document already says the page was "not verified by me"; that caveat licenses citing the data, not drawing the conclusion. Criterion 11 as written by PM: "No commercial viability, sales, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion may be inferred from an unsuitable proxy."
+
- **Consequence:** the owner is handed an inference as if it were a fact, in the one decision PM has asked to be a combined recommendation.
+
- **Category:** honesty (criterion 10) and criterion 11.
+
- **Minimal change:** keep the data and its stated limits; replace the sentence with what the sample supports ("the measured playtimes are a different quantity from designed length and cannot be compared directly; REF103 is auditing what they do show"); let the shelf recommendation rest on the design's own facts — genre feel, three to four hours, the refund terms read directly — and on a stated assumption, labelled as one.
+
+
### REV102-9 — The summary's "nine rounds of independent critique… certifies" (PM instruction; agreed)
+
+
The owner summary's second caution reads "The design has been through nine rounds of independent critique and reads cold; that certifies consistency and honesty, not fun." Replace it. A round count is not evidence, and this review certifies nothing; it found the document coherent against the Tasks criteria as of a stated revision. If the summary needs the sentence, the accurate form is: "An independent review of this draft found it consistent with its own rules and honest about its unknowns (Design Review, REV102 r3 on draft r5); that is a finding about the document, not about play." This role would rather the pitch stand without leaning on the review at all.
+
+
## DES103 checklist — criterion 11 added
+
+
Criteria 1–11, with 11 as PM wrote it: the intended player within the survivorlike requirement; the distinctive experience and why that player might choose it; scope, intended completion and replay length, and any provisional pricing or positioning assumption, **combined into one recommendation** (PMU002 X20: one proposed experience meeting the genre requirement — the arc as the recommended default or a stated alternative — not a menu); dated comparables with limits; observed data separated from predicted behaviour; no viability, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion from an unsuitable proxy. Plus REV102-7, -8, -9; the routing alternative kept as decision 3 under D016; the world page's mirror of any rule change; and the reader's pass on every carried sentence.
| **REV102-9** — "nine rounds… certifies" in the summary | REV102 r4 | **Open** — DES103 |
+
+
## PM report — REV102 r4
+
+
- **Task:** REV102 (r3 covers draft r5; r4 covers r6; DES103's base is reviewed through r6). **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r4 (this page); r3 moved to the REV102 archive verbatim.
+
- **Reviewed:** PMU002 across Brief, Tasks, Team, Hub; Design Document 12779d diffed against bc134b; World and Mystery a8a3f4 diffed against 23dca9.
+
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. D016, D017, D018 applied to this review's checklist and wording.
+
- **Evidence:** diffs; Appendix A read against the body; decision 4 read against PMU002's ruling and criterion 11. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.
+
- **Remaining risk:** DES103 built on r6 without REV102-7 to -9 would carry a naming contradiction and an unsupported inference into the owner packet; both are one-sentence fixes.
+
- **Next handoff:** lead — DES103 on r6 with REV102-7 to -9 and criterion 11; I review DES103 when it exists and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** none new; record that DES103's base is reviewed through draft r6.
-
**On this page:** [r3](#rev102-r3-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r4) · [r2](#rev102-r2-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r3) · [r1](#rev102-r1-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r2)
