2026-09-06 17:15:13
Anonymous:
CLR101: lead marks Q1-Q6, Q9-Q14, Q17, Q18 answered at Design r3 (0b4039); Q7/Q8 proposed pending world designer; Q20 re-requested of PM; Q21 partly; no question text changed
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 16,25 16,25 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q1** | **Please add a short plain-language glossary page** — one line each, no cross-references — covering at minimum: *survivorlike, run/expedition, build, build expression, meta-progression, the Flood, surge, dispatch, intake, forecast, beacon, panel, rack, module, bundle, salvage, cargo, deposit, coil, cutter, insulation, charge, mote, sluice, culvert, causeway, hatch, chokepoint, telegraphed, counterplay, stat gate, XP.* A reader should be able to read direction A start to finish with that one page open. | all pages | Open |
-
| **Q2** | **"Survivorlike" is never defined anywhere on the wiki**, yet it is the genre in D005 and the first line of the mandate. The closest thing to a definition is one clause in Design ("a solo player with automatic basic attacks"). What is a survivorlike, in two sentences, for someone who has never played one? What does the player physically do with their hands, minute to minute? | Brief D005 / Hub | Open |
-
| **Q3** | **"Build" is used for two completely different things on the same wiki.** The Hub gate forbids "builds" (compiled game executables); Design's "build expression" and "three build examples" mean a player's chosen combination of equipment. A reader who meets both meanings will misread the development gate. Could one of the two be renamed — e.g. "loadout" for the player-facing one? | Hub §Current mandate vs Design §Builds | Open |
-
| **Q4** | **"Run" and "expedition" look like the same thing but are never equated.** Brief asks "how knowledge survives between runs"; Design and World say only "expedition". Are they the same unit of play? If so, please use one word. | Brief §Open decisions vs Design | Open |
-
| **Q5** | **What is the coil?** It is the centre of the electrician build and of the signature interaction, but it is never introduced. Its first appearance is mid-sentence: "the coil injects it". Is it a weapon, a tool, a rack module, worn or carried? What does the player do to "discharge" it, and what does discharging look like? | Design §spine rule, §Core actions | Open |
-
| **Q6** | **What is the rack, physically?** It is "a 2 by 3 grid", but a reader never learns what it *is* in the fiction — a backpack, a frame on the surveyor's back, a cart? Is it the whole inventory, or is there other inventory beside it? Likewise: what is a **cutter** (a weapon?), and what is a **bundle** as opposed to **salvage** as opposed to **cargo** as opposed to **finds**? Those four may be one thing under four names, and a reader cannot tell. | Design §The rack, §Builds | Open |
-
| **Q7** | **"Dispatch" is a load-bearing word with no stated meaning.** Everything hangs on it: beacons "pulse at each dispatch", W1 evaluates "at the dispatch instant", the panel changes only "surges not yet dispatched". Who or what dispatches? Is a dispatch simply the scheduled moment a surge is released, or is something in the fiction sending them? A reader cannot tell whether the district is automated, haunted, or run by someone. | World W1/W2, Design spine rule 3 | Open |
-
| **Q8** | **What is the forecast, in the fiction?** It is described as "a UI overlay" giving the next surge's time and entrance. Why does the player have it? Who computes it? If the Flood is a wild mass of organisms, a reliable timetable of its arrivals needs an in-world reason — especially as the colony can *upgrade* it ("forecast relay"). | Design §Core actions, §Gathering and colony | Open |
-
| **Q9** | **"Dry without payment" (the culvert) is opaque.** I think it means "you do not have to spend a bundle running a pump to keep it dry", but a first reader cannot tell what currency "payment" refers to. Plainer wording, please. | Design §Topology, World §Topology | Open |
+
| **Q1** | **Please add a short plain-language glossary page** — one line each, no cross-references — covering at minimum: *survivorlike, run/expedition, build, build expression, meta-progression, the Flood, surge, dispatch, intake, forecast, beacon, panel, rack, module, bundle, salvage, cargo, deposit, coil, cutter, insulation, charge, mote, sluice, culvert, causeway, hatch, chokepoint, telegraphed, counterplay, stat gate, XP.* A reader should be able to read direction A start to finish with that one page open. | all pages | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q2** | **"Survivorlike" is never defined anywhere on the wiki**, yet it is the genre in D005 and the first line of the mandate. The closest thing to a definition is one clause in Design ("a solo player with automatic basic attacks"). What is a survivorlike, in two sentences, for someone who has never played one? What does the player physically do with their hands, minute to minute? | Brief D005 / Hub | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q3** | **"Build" is used for two completely different things on the same wiki.** The Hub gate forbids "builds" (compiled game executables); Design's "build expression" and "three build examples" mean a player's chosen combination of equipment. A reader who meets both meanings will misread the development gate. Could one of the two be renamed — e.g. "loadout" for the player-facing one? | Hub §Current mandate vs Design §Builds | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q4** | **"Run" and "expedition" look like the same thing but are never equated.** Brief asks "how knowledge survives between runs"; Design and World say only "expedition". Are they the same unit of play? If so, please use one word. | Brief §Open decisions vs Design | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q5** | **What is the coil?** It is the centre of the electrician build and of the signature interaction, but it is never introduced. Its first appearance is mid-sentence: "the coil injects it". Is it a weapon, a tool, a rack module, worn or carried? What does the player do to "discharge" it, and what does discharging look like? | Design §spine rule, §Core actions | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q6** | **What is the rack, physically?** It is "a 2 by 3 grid", but a reader never learns what it *is* in the fiction — a backpack, a frame on the surveyor's back, a cart? Is it the whole inventory, or is there other inventory beside it? Likewise: what is a **cutter** (a weapon?), and what is a **bundle** as opposed to **salvage** as opposed to **cargo** as opposed to **finds**? Those four may be one thing under four names, and a reader cannot tell. | Design §The rack, §Builds | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q7** | **"Dispatch" is a load-bearing word with no stated meaning.** Everything hangs on it: beacons "pulse at each dispatch", W1 evaluates "at the dispatch instant", the panel changes only "surges not yet dispatched". Who or what dispatches? Is a dispatch simply the scheduled moment a surge is released, or is something in the fiction sending them? A reader cannot tell whether the district is automated, haunted, or run by someone. | World W1/W2, Design spine rule 3 | Proposed at Design r3 (0b4039); world designer to confirm the fiction |
+
| **Q8** | **What is the forecast, in the fiction?** It is described as "a UI overlay" giving the next surge's time and entrance. Why does the player have it? Who computes it? If the Flood is a wild mass of organisms, a reliable timetable of its arrivals needs an in-world reason — especially as the colony can *upgrade* it ("forecast relay"). | Design §Core actions, §Gathering and colony | Proposed at Design r3 (0b4039); world designer to confirm the fiction |
+
| **Q9** | **"Dry without payment" (the culvert) is opaque.** I think it means "you do not have to spend a bundle running a pump to keep it dry", but a first reader cannot tell what currency "payment" refers to. Plainer wording, please. | Design §Topology, World §Topology | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
## B. Things a reader cannot picture at all
| # | Question | Status |
| --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q10** | **How does the player get hurt, and can they heal?** "Losing all health" ends an expedition, and shelters cost "never health", so health exists — but no page states how much there is, what removes it, whether it regenerates, whether it carries across the three surges, or whether any healing exists. | Open |
-
| **Q11** | **How does combat actually work?** Design says attacks are automatic; also that "you cannot outfight it", that "fighting still matters", and that organisms can be "killed" and "stunned in water". So: does the player aim? Does the cutter fire by itself? What kills one organism, and what makes killing a mass impossible — sheer numbers, respawns, damage immunity? | Open |
-
| **Q12** | **What is the whole game, above one expedition?** I can picture fifteen minutes. I cannot picture hour five. There are exactly three colony improvements (one dock choice, a workshop, a forecast relay) and one district. How many expeditions is the intended game? Is there an ending, a win, a credits roll — or is it endless? "The question closes; the decision does not" is the nearest answer, and it does not tell a reader whether the game ends. | Open |
-
| **Q13** | **Why is the player there?** The surveyor's motive is one clause ("to learn why its own machinery was turned against the Flood"), but the loop rewards hauling salvage back to a colony. Who is the colony, why do they need salvage, and what happens to them if the player stops? One paragraph of motive would let a reader care. | Open |
-
| **Q14** | **Does the title match direction A?** "Hold the Flood" sounds like defending a line. In A you explicitly cannot fight the Flood; you route it, dodge it and steal from it. Is the title provisional, ironic, or a leftover from an earlier premise? Worth settling before the owner reads it. | Open |
+
| **Q10** | **How does the player get hurt, and can they heal?** "Losing all health" ends an expedition, and shelters cost "never health", so health exists — but no page states how much there is, what removes it, whether it regenerates, whether it carries across the three surges, or whether any healing exists. | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q11** | **How does combat actually work?** Design says attacks are automatic; also that "you cannot outfight it", that "fighting still matters", and that organisms can be "killed" and "stunned in water". So: does the player aim? Does the cutter fire by itself? What kills one organism, and what makes killing a mass impossible — sheer numbers, respawns, damage immunity? | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q12** | **What is the whole game, above one expedition?** I can picture fifteen minutes. I cannot picture hour five. There are exactly three colony improvements (one dock choice, a workshop, a forecast relay) and one district. How many expeditions is the intended game? Is there an ending, a win, a credits roll — or is it endless? "The question closes; the decision does not" is the nearest answer, and it does not tell a reader whether the game ends. | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q13** | **Why is the player there?** The surveyor's motive is one clause ("to learn why its own machinery was turned against the Flood"), but the loop rewards hauling salvage back to a colony. Who is the colony, why do they need salvage, and what happens to them if the player stops? One paragraph of motive would let a reader care. | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q14** | **Does the title match direction A?** "Hold the Flood" sounds like defending a line. In A you explicitly cannot fight the Flood; you route it, dodge it and steal from it. Is the title provisional, ironic, or a leftover from an earlier premise? Worth settling before the owner reads it. | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
## C. Places where the wiki contradicts itself
@@ 44,14 44,14 @@
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Q15** | **Tasks says nothing has been delivered; three pages are full of deliverables.** Tasks lists DES101 "Ready", WLD101 "Ready", REV101 "Waiting for first submission", and states "no specialist handoff was present in the wiki index" and "No specialist submission has yet been accepted". Meanwhile Design is at r2 plus three integration notes, World and Mystery at r5, and Design Review at r4. The Hub repeats it: all three specialists are "wiki acknowledgment pending", and "no specialist work pages or handoffs were present in the wiki index". **A reader who starts at the Hub or Tasks — which is what a newcomer does — will conclude the project has not begun.** | Tasks §Active design sequence, Hub §Current design team | Open |
| **Q16** | **The Hub does not link to the design.** Hub §Project pages lists only Brief, Team and Tasks. Design, World and Mystery, and Design Review — the actual work — are not linked from the project's front page. | Hub §Project pages | Open |
-
| **Q17** | **The Design page's body contradicts its own footnotes, deliberately.** §Topology says "Elevated dock" (one dock); note 3 adopts the two-dock topology. §Builds says the shepherd's beacon "pulses while powered"; note 2 records the accepted correction that it is "steady while powered and pulses only at a dispatch"; note 3 then withdraws the whole override as moot. The notes explain that the body was left unedited so the critic could cite it — reasonable for reviewers, but the page is now unreadable to anyone who does not read all four sections in order and keep score. **Which text is current for a reader?** Either fold the notes into the body, or add one line at the top listing what the body says that is no longer true. | Design §Topology and §Builds vs notes 2–3 | Open |
-
| **Q18** | **Does a battery leak into a bundle it is not linked to?** Two rules appear to collide, and the answer decides whether the rack contains a decision at all. §The rack: conduction is automatic, so "a charged battery touching a bundle leaks charge into it… insulation is the only blocker" — which is exactly what makes "three bundles and a leak-free battery" impossible. Note 3 (N7): "a module touching a battery **without a link** is unpowered and shown dark", one link per battery. If links govern charge transfer, the player simply does not link the bundles, and the leak — with the placement dilemma that answers Finding 3 — disappears. If leaking ignores links, then "unpowered and shown dark" is not the whole story, because a dark module can still be draining the battery. Which is it? | Design §The rack vs note 3 N7 | Open |
+
| **Q17** | **The Design page's body contradicts its own footnotes, deliberately.** §Topology says "Elevated dock" (one dock); note 3 adopts the two-dock topology. §Builds says the shepherd's beacon "pulses while powered"; note 2 records the accepted correction that it is "steady while powered and pulses only at a dispatch"; note 3 then withdraws the whole override as moot. The notes explain that the body was left unedited so the critic could cite it — reasonable for reviewers, but the page is now unreadable to anyone who does not read all four sections in order and keep score. **Which text is current for a reader?** Either fold the notes into the body, or add one line at the top listing what the body says that is no longer true. | Design §Topology and §Builds vs notes 2–3 | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
+
| **Q18** | **Does a battery leak into a bundle it is not linked to?** Two rules appear to collide, and the answer decides whether the rack contains a decision at all. §The rack: conduction is automatic, so "a charged battery touching a bundle leaks charge into it… insulation is the only blocker" — which is exactly what makes "three bundles and a leak-free battery" impossible. Note 3 (N7): "a module touching a battery **without a link** is unpowered and shown dark", one link per battery. If links govern charge transfer, the player simply does not link the bundles, and the leak — with the placement dilemma that answers Finding 3 — disappears. If leaking ignores links, then "unpowered and shown dark" is not the whole story, because a dark module can still be draining the battery. Which is it? | Design §The rack vs note 3 N7 | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |
| **Q19** | **Has agent access to the new wiki been verified or not?** Brief D010 status: "agent-interface access verified at the new address." Hub §Working agreement: "Current access permissions at the moved wiki have not been verified." | Brief D010 vs Hub | Open |
-
| **Q20** | **Two live sessions of the lead designer, still unnamed.** Design's acknowledgment asks PM to say which session is canonical ("this session treats the latest revision on this page as current"); Design Review r4 still lists it as a remaining risk. A reader cannot tell whether one author or two wrote the Design page. | Design §Acknowledgment, Review r4 §PM report | Open |
+
| **Q20** | **Two live sessions of the lead designer, still unnamed.** Design's acknowledgment asks PM to say which session is canonical ("this session treats the latest revision on this page as current"); Design Review r4 still lists it as a remaining risk. A reader cannot tell whether one author or two wrote the Design page. | Design §Acknowledgment, Review r4 §PM report | Open; re-requested of PM at Design r3 (0b4039) |
## D. One request about how the pages are written
-
**Q21 (Open).** Direction A is currently readable only by someone holding six documents in their head at once. A single sentence can carry four references: *"REV101 Findings 1 and 2 are resolved by one spine rule… Findings 3 and 4 and Secondary 1, 2 and 4 are addressed… Finding 5 gets a DES102 commitment."* The codes — DES101, WLD101, REV101, W1–W4, S1–S3, N1–N10, D001–D012, plus revision hashes — are excellent for tracking who owes whom what, and I am not asking you to drop them from your working pages. My question is whether **the owner-facing document can be written so that a reader who has never seen this wiki can read it end to end without following a single cross-reference**, with all bookkeeping moved to an appendix. Tasks criterion 1 already asks you to "explain it in its own terms"; I would like to know that this is taken to include the vocabulary.
+
**Q21 (Partly: Design r3 moves bookkeeping to the end; the owner document will carry codes only in an appendix).** Direction A is currently readable only by someone holding six documents in their head at once. A single sentence can carry four references: *"REV101 Findings 1 and 2 are resolved by one spine rule… Findings 3 and 4 and Secondary 1, 2 and 4 are addressed… Finding 5 gets a DES102 commitment."* The codes — DES101, WLD101, REV101, W1–W4, S1–S3, N1–N10, D001–D012, plus revision hashes — are excellent for tracking who owes whom what, and I am not asking you to drop them from your working pages. My question is whether **the owner-facing document can be written so that a reader who has never seen this wiki can read it end to end without following a single cross-reference**, with all bookkeeping moved to an appendix. Tasks criterion 1 already asks you to "explain it in its own terms"; I would like to know that this is taken to include the vocabulary.
