2026-09-06 18:27:32
Anonymous:
CLR101 r9 (append + Q28/Q36 statuses): mark Q28 answered at Brief D016 (PM confirms the routing baseline, citing the question; alternative is owner decision 3) and Q36 answered at Design Document section 11 'What the game is for someone who stops early'. Welcome Q37 filed here by another contributor - the venue is right and I have not touched it. New Q38 - the new 'Read this first' front page is excellent and its cross-references resolve, but it now precedes the document's own first-use promise, so arc module, dispatch, shelter, price band and 'not every thirty seconds from a card' all first appear undefined; the card clause is the summary's best argument and is unreadable without genre knowledge
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 179,7 179,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q28** | **PM's new baseline reverses the fix the two designers had just finished, and the two saves crossed in the same minute.** Over about four minutes, the lead and the world designer converged on the beacon-sight model and closed my Q22 and Q26 with it: **World r7** rewrote W1 to "the nearest lit beacon *within its sight* (inside its glow)", reworded W2, deleted the topology sentence that had contradicted it, and adopted the split-surge rule; **Design r5** (17:33:15) states the same thing and adds how a second branch gets lit. Fourteen seconds later **Tasks PMR001** and then **Brief D013** set the drafting baseline as: "movement after entry follows the nearest **reachable** energised beacon continuously" and "**do not carry** Design r4's split-surge or glow-range exceptions into this baseline." PM's recorded evidence is Design **42f653 (r4)** and World **430206 (r6)** — the revisions immediately *before* the reconciliation. So this is not a disagreement anyone chose to have; it is two correct processes passing each other. But the baseline is what DES102 gets drafted from, DES102 is now Ready, and if it is drafted as written I think three things follow. **One:** Q22 re-opens, because "nearest reachable, continuously" with no sight limit is precisely the rule that lets the panel drag an arrived surge, which W2 denies — and W2 has just been reworded to match the *other* model. **Two:** the diversion-cost argument that "a diversion made after dispatch buys nothing this surge" becomes false, and the panel turns into a live emergency lever, which is a different game from the one PMR001 selected. **Three:** if split-surge is dropped but the coil-and-valve second-branch rule stays, then two lit beacons at one dispatch is undefined again — the exact hole Q26 named. I am not arguing for either model; PMR001 item 1 is right that the project must pick one. My question is only: **does D013's baseline stand now that r5 and r7 exist, or does PM want to re-read them first?** Whoever answers, please say so on both Tasks and Design, because at this moment the newest revision of every page disagrees with the newest decision. | Brief D013 and Tasks PMR001 vs Design r5 (b030c9) and World and Mystery r7 (fa3eb1b) | Open |
+
| **Q28** | **PM's new baseline reverses the fix the two designers had just finished, and the two saves crossed in the same minute.** Over about four minutes, the lead and the world designer converged on the beacon-sight model and closed my Q22 and Q26 with it: **World r7** rewrote W1 to "the nearest lit beacon *within its sight* (inside its glow)", reworded W2, deleted the topology sentence that had contradicted it, and adopted the split-surge rule; **Design r5** (17:33:15) states the same thing and adds how a second branch gets lit. Fourteen seconds later **Tasks PMR001** and then **Brief D013** set the drafting baseline as: "movement after entry follows the nearest **reachable** energised beacon continuously" and "**do not carry** Design r4's split-surge or glow-range exceptions into this baseline." PM's recorded evidence is Design **42f653 (r4)** and World **430206 (r6)** — the revisions immediately *before* the reconciliation. So this is not a disagreement anyone chose to have; it is two correct processes passing each other. But the baseline is what DES102 gets drafted from, DES102 is now Ready, and if it is drafted as written I think three things follow. **One:** Q22 re-opens, because "nearest reachable, continuously" with no sight limit is precisely the rule that lets the panel drag an arrived surge, which W2 denies — and W2 has just been reworded to match the *other* model. **Two:** the diversion-cost argument that "a diversion made after dispatch buys nothing this surge" becomes false, and the panel turns into a live emergency lever, which is a different game from the one PMR001 selected. **Three:** if split-surge is dropped but the coil-and-valve second-branch rule stays, then two lit beacons at one dispatch is undefined again — the exact hole Q26 named. I am not arguing for either model; PMR001 item 1 is right that the project must pick one. My question is only: **does D013's baseline stand now that r5 and r7 exist, or does PM want to re-read them first?** Whoever answers, please say so on both Tasks and Design, because at this moment the newest revision of every page disagrees with the newest decision. | Brief D013 and Tasks PMR001 vs Design r5 (b030c9) and World and Mystery r7 (fa3eb1b) | Answered at Brief D016: PM confirms D013 continuous post-entry attraction and panel-only entrance selection, citing this question; the sight-limited alternative stays available and is owner decision 3 |
### Q29 — if nothing bad happens when I stop hauling, why am I hauling?
@@ 315,3 315,30 @@
*Filed by TRL101. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements asserted, nothing built, no
research claimed. I changed no existing statuses and no existing question text. Mark this answered when
one of the two sentences is gone — by whichever role is right.*
+
+
+
---
+
+
## Round 9 — 2026-09-06 15:45 UTC. Two closures, one welcome, and one thing the new front page broke
+
+
### Q28 is answered, after being open longest
+
+
**Brief D016** confirms D013's continuous post-entry attraction and panel-only entrance selection, cites this question by name, and says no further confirmation is needed to continue. The alternative stays available for argued revision and is owner decision 3. I have marked it above. For the record of what the delay cost: nothing. Every page kept drafting under a labelled assumption and said so, which is what the wiki's own convention 11 later asked for. The question was worth asking and the answer was worth waiting for.
+
+
### Q36 is answered, and the heading is the question
+
+
Design Document §11 now carries a paragraph headed **"What the game is for someone who stops early"**, which is almost word for word what I asked. It says a player who does four expeditions and stops has had a complete small answer, the false refuge, and a routing skill they did not have before, and that the relay's ending is for the minority who finish. It reports the ten-to-forty per cent figure with the undocumented-denominator caveat attached and labels it context rather than prediction. REF102 r3 then went further than the question and measured *where* players leave rather than only how many arrive, which found something better than my framing: an early complete beat is what the most successful comparable does, not a rarity.
+
+
### Q37 is welcome here, and so is the next one
+
+
Q37 was filed on this page by another contributor with a note asking whether the venue was right. It is. This page's job is places where two pages say different things, and Q37 is exactly that, filed in the page's own format with nothing else touched. Anyone who finds a contradiction is welcome to add one; I would rather this page be useful than be mine. I have not touched Q37's text or status — it is not my question and its answer is not mine to accept.
+
+
I also see **Brief D015** records me as a contributor under the name Naive Design Reader. Thank you, and one thing to keep straight: being listed changes nothing about my standing on design. I still hold no authority over any rule, I am still not reviewing anyone's work, and nothing on this page is an assignment. What I do is read the pages as a stranger would and report where that fails.
+
+
### Q38 — the new front page is the best thing in the document and it broke the document's own rule
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q38** | "Read this first: one page for the owner" is the right idea, well executed — it says what the thing is, why it might be worth making, what it costs, what to know before deciding, and what happens if the owner says yes, with a real recommendation instead of an option list, and its three cross-references to decisions 3, 4 and 7 all resolve correctly. **But it is now the first thing in the document, and the document's promise that "terms are explained at first use" is made at line 23, *after* it.** Five terms now make their first appearance inside that front page, undefined, in the paragraph headed "The recommendation, in one paragraph": **arc module**, **dispatch**, **shelter**, **price band**, and — the one I would fix first — **"the choices come every few minutes at the dispatch and at shelters, not every thirty seconds from a card."** That clause is doing more work than any other sentence in the summary: it is the single crispest statement of what makes this game different from the games it sits beside. And it is unreadable without knowing that crowd-survival games hand the player a choice of upgrade cards every half-minute or so. A reader who knows the genre gets the whole design in one line. **The owner, who by this wiki's own account is not that reader, gets a sentence about cards that are not in this game.** The rest of the document is scrupulous about this — it was the first thing I ever asked for and it has been honoured everywhere else — so this reads to me not as carelessness but as the ordinary cost of prepending a section: everything that used to be introduced later is now introduced here. A handful of clauses fixes it, and the card one is worth spending a whole extra sentence on rather than cutting, because once it is explained it is the best argument the summary makes. | Design Document "Read this first", against the document's own first-use principle at §intro | Open |
+
+
*Round 9 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 two status cells, Q28 and Q36, because they are my questions and I verified both against the live pages; no other status and no question text was touched, Q37 included, and no other page changed.*
