2026-09-07 21:52:28
Anonymous:
Close death comparison and start parallel foundations
hold the flood/design plan.md ..
@@ 14,9 14,23 @@
[Oxygen and Observation](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Oxygen%20and%20Observation) is provisionally integrated following independent positions, focused review and a reasoned response. Its record contents, paused display and example are explicit. The owner decided that the rest of the game pauses while the journal screen is open, including during combat; the requirement is recorded in the [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief). Record format, capture costs, other interface details and the wider oxygen rhythm remain proposals. This written exercise establishes coherence, not fun, balance or demonstrated accessibility.
-
## Next question: death and persistence
+
## Death and persistence — written comparison complete
-
Lead and Systems completed independent first positions on death costs and persistence; PM verified the actual files and released them together. Lead has submitted [Death and Persistence](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Death%20And%20Persistence), comparing recoverable pack loss with restoring pre-departure equipment while losing new material. Focused independent review is complete. Lead retains sole article ownership for one bounded author response clarifying comparative costs, cache persistence, continued exploration and conditional recovery; PM will inspect the revision before disposition. Claims that oxygen death necessarily marks maximum reach or that intact cached equipment has no cost are not established. No death-loss rule is adopted. The broader question of permanent survivor loss is reserved for a concrete rescue or colony decision; the current comparison need not settle it. Preserve the revival premise and its unresolved explanation. No implementation, simulation or playtest is authorized.
+
[Death and Persistence](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Death%20And%20Persistence) is provisionally integrated after focused review, author response and final PM consistency corrections. The working proposal preserves carried items in recoverable caches and retains journal records. Gear availability and recovery journeys are costs; the equipment-versus-salvage capacity tradeoff also remains under the alternative of restoring pre-departure gear. The proposal requires a minimum useful expedition even after all carried equipment is cached. Systems is addressing that dependency below. Death-loss preferences and effects on experimentation remain unvalidated; broader survivor-loss and deliberate-death preferences are reserved for concrete decisions requiring the owner.
+
+
## Active milestone: exploration structure and build rules
+
+
The next outcome is a coherent proposal for repeated exploration and player-made combinations beyond the earlier example sortie. The two authors work concurrently, each saving an independent position before new peer exposure, then continuing directly to a complete draft and self-check. These are proposals under the existing brief, not a new development phase.
| Lead | Exploration Structure | Compare station arrangements; explain stable and changing places, route knowledge and revisits through a compact three-expedition example with narrative discovery and a practical consequence. |
+
| Systems | Build Rules | Compare ways to compose equipment; define understandable interactions with a small illustrative part set and three build paths, inventory costs and a minimum useful expedition after gear loss. |
+
| Reviewer | Review in project chat | Save independent starting alternatives before either new draft; inspect each verified submission as it arrives and their interface once both arrive. Report consequential objections and real uncertainties. |
+
+
The reviewer is assigned in advance to these named submissions, so publication can lead directly to review without a new PM permission step. Authors pause edits after submitting; PM verifies the actual articles and review, assigns one combined reasoned response where needed, and makes a provisional disposition or relays a necessary owner preference. Article ownership remains with the named writer. The current bounded assignment is in project chat120.
+
+
PM coordinates ready handoffs within active work sessions. One-minute scheduled checks provide a fallback while authorized useful work remains; hourly checks apply when no such work can continue. The next work should follow actual dependencies, not keep people busy with duplicate design or reviews.
## First exercise contract (completed)
@@ 42,4 56,4 @@
- Unknowns and the largest content/scope risks are explicit. The 30/90/100–200 hour ambitions remain unvalidated.
- An independent review identifies any material objection and the author responds with reasons. Acceptance never requires unanimity.
-
Lead and Systems draft in parallel, with one writer per article. Before review, reconcile shared assumptions about carrying burden, extraction conditions and relevant hazards. PM resumes Lead for an integration pass once Systems is ready, then gives the reviewer the exact reconciled revisions. PM will integrate a coherent provisional direction, retain important unresolved tradeoffs and ask the owner only the decisions that materially affect it. Later development or player validation requires explicit owner authorization; written descriptions cannot establish gameplay quality.
+
The first exercise used an integration pass before independent review. The active milestone above instead assigns review of the named submissions in advance; the reviewer also checks their shared interface, and PM coordinates any required response with one writer per article. PM will integrate a coherent provisional direction, retain important unresolved tradeoffs and ask the owner only the decisions that materially affect it. Later development or player validation requires explicit owner authorization; written descriptions cannot establish gameplay quality.
