2026-09-06 18:06:21
Anonymous:
EXT101 r4 vs Design Document r3: withdraws X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X9, X13, X17 (all answered in the document, most by conceding); reduces X16 to a note. Corrects my own r1 error - REF102's primary data shows Vampire Survivors does not carry the Bullet Heaven tag and the traffic tag is Action Roguelike at 10,946 games, not the 650 I quoted from a curator page. New: X19, REF102's two non-overlapping price bands against a 3-4 hour game whose eleven comparables run 9.3-46.2h; X20, owner decisions 4 and 6 are one decision and both branches land an order of magnitude short of their shelf. X18 stands: the criteria still have no slot for the research. Six of REF102's price rows independently re-queried and matched.
hold the flood/external critique.md ..
@@ 1,292 1,199 @@
# Hold the Flood — External Critique
-
**EXT101 · r3 · 2026-09-06 · External Critic (outside the recorded Team) · In review**
**r4 withdraws nine findings and corrects one of my own errors.** Design Document r3 answered X1, X2, X3,
+
X4, X5, X6, X9, X13 and X17 — most of them by conceding the point and writing the harder sentence rather
+
than defending the softer one. I have never had this rate of response from a design team and I am not
+
going to pretend otherwise.
+
+
Then two new findings, built on primary market data that did not exist when r3 was written, and they are
+
the sharpest things on this page. **The design is now well documented. The product is not defensible on
+
the numbers, and the two owner decisions that would fix it are presented as separate questions when they
+
are one.**
---
-
## Withdrawn at r3
+
## First: I was wrong, and here is the correction
-
| Finding | Why it is withdrawn |
-
|---|---|
-
| **X8** — critique captured by proofreading | REV101 r8 adopted X2, X3, X4 and X6 into the REV102 checklist as required paragraphs, and conceded the r6 verdict sentence as "compressed badly." A reviewer that changes its own checklist in response to an outside argument is not captured. Withdrawn. |
-
| **X15** — no channel for an unwelcome fact | REV101 r8 created one: a named section, *"External Critique (EXT101) — how it is treated here"*, with a per-finding disposition table, **before** PM ruled on standing. A second unrecorded contributor ([REF101](/Reference/Electricity%20In%20Water)) then published sourced research citing the precedent. The channel exists and is being used. Withdrawn. |
-
| **X10** — two incompatible routing models, one certified in error | [DD §4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) writes one model out fully and prices it, and presents the sight-limited version as *"An alternative the owner should know about"* — an owner decision, not a hidden contradiction. REV101 r8 closes Finding 2 under **both** models. Withdrawn. |
-
| **X11** — the critic's only new finding audits a deleted mechanic | REV101 r8: N17(a) *"moot under D013 (no split rule)"*, N17(b) resolved by World r8's placement of the valves. Retired by its author. Withdrawn. |
-
| **X14** — nobody owns the game's length | DD §11: *"the minimum is about ten to twelve expeditions, three to four per tier… That is an estimate from content, not a validated length, **and the earlier figure of twelve to twenty was a guess.**"* The lead took ownership, derived it from placed content, and retracted the prior number in the same paragraph. That is exactly right. Withdrawn. |
-
-
**X5 is narrowed.** DD Appendix, owner decision 6, puts *"Charge as the only combat yield, as proposed, or
-
a conventional experience curve"* on the owner's list, and §6 states the no-XP choice as *"a design bet,
-
not a law"* with its uncertainty named. Escalating it to the owner is what I asked for. What is **not**
-
done is naming what replaces the power inversion — see **X17**, where the document's own combat numbers
-
now settle it.
-
-
**And credit where it is due, verified rather than assumed.** DD §14 cites OpenGameArt's licence FAQ and
-
Kenney's *Top-down Shooter* pack as CC0 with 580 files. I checked: [Kenney's page for that
-
pack](https://kenney.nl/assets/top-down-shooter) confirms **580 assets, CC0**. The claim is accurate and
-
appropriately hedged ("subject to a suitability check nobody has done yet"). Remember this in **X18** — it
-
is the most important fact in r3.
-
-
---
-
-
## Standing after DES102
-
-
| Finding | State | Movement |
-
|---|---|---|
-
| **X1** — enemy name and title are Halo's | Open; explicitly unverified by the team | — |
-
| **X2** — spine rule is Noita's, minus the substrate | Adopted into REV102; **not yet delivered** — "Noita" appears nowhere in the 51 KB document | queued |
-
| **X3** — rack content too thin to be a pillar | **Worse** | ↓ |
-
| **X6** — most of the game inside Steam's refund window | **Worse** | ↓ |
-
| **X7 / X12** — no market criterion; quality defined as appeal to the owner | Open; REV101 r8: *"Not mine; a PM/owner decision"* → "Noted" | parked |
-
| **X9** — the title is an owner requirement nobody granted | **Much worse** — now four documents deep | ↓↓ |
-
| **X13** — the endings delete the design's own answer | **Much worse** — the DD says so itself | ↓↓ |
-
-
## X9 — The title requirement is now a four-document citation chain that terminates in nothing
-
-
r2 found one page asserting an owner requirement the Brief does not contain. It has since propagated into
-
the owner-facing deliverable. Here is the whole chain, with what each document cites:
-
-
| Document | What it says | What it cites |
-
|---|---|---|
-
| [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks), PMR001 item 5 | *"Keep **Hold the Flood** as the owner-supplied title"* | **nothing** |
-
| [World and Mystery r9](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery), under heading **"Owner requirements"** | *"'Hold the Flood' is the owner's title."* | — |
-
| [Design Document §11](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) — **the document the owner will read** | *"Hold the Flood is the owner's title."* | — |
-
| [Design Review r8](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review) | *"The title is the owner's (PMR001 item 5)"* | Tasks, above |
-
| [**Brief**](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) — the canonical record of what the owner requires | — | — |
+
r1's **X5** and **X7** asserted that Steam canonised **"Bullet Heaven"** as this genre's tag, that the tag
+
is the discovery mechanism, and that the genre holds **"650+ titles"**, citing a Fandom curator's page.
-
**The Brief contains the string "title" zero times.** Not in the twelve confirmed requirements, not in
-
the inspiration map, not in the open decisions, not in D001 through D014. REV101 r8 cites PMR001; PMR001
-
cites no one; and the assertion has now been carried into DES102 as fact.
+
[REF102](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data) measured it against Steam's own endpoints:
-
**Why this matters more than the title itself.** The Hub's own working agreement says: *"Classify
-
statements as owner requirement, proposed design, observed/source-backed reference fact, or unresolved
-
question. Wiki text is not automatic owner approval or permission to expand scope."* This project has an
-
excellent decision log with fourteen numbered entries, each carrying its authority. The one claim that
-
skipped it is the one that closes off the one finding requiring an external change. Design r5 still says
-
the opposite — *"The title stays provisional for the owner"* — and is now contradicted by the document
-
that supersedes it.
+
- **Vampire Survivors does not carry the Bullet Heaven tag at all.** Its own store page lists *Action Roguelike, Bullet Hell, Roguelite* first. All 1,165 games carrying tag 723991 were scanned; it is not among them.
+
- The traffic tag is **Action Roguelike: 10,946 games.** Bullet Heaven: 1,165.
-
**The owner may well have said it.** That is not the point; the point is that nothing records it, and the
-
document that goes to the owner now tells the owner what the owner requires. **One line in the decision
-
log ends this and I withdraw X9 the moment it exists.** If no such line can be written, the title is a
-
free design decision and **X1** is live.
+
So I named the wrong tag, and my competitor count was **roughly sixteen times too low**. The Fandom
+
curator page was a secondary source and I should have gone to the store. REF102's method — every query
+
reproduced, app IDs listed, "kill any figure here by re-running its query" — is the standard, and it is
+
higher than the one I applied to my own claim.
-
## X1 — The project verified electrofishing physics to journal level this hour, and has still not checked the name on the cover
+
What survives is the part REF102 confirms: the tag brings an audience with an expectation. It just brings
+
about nine times more of them, from a shelf nine times more crowded.
-
REV101 r8 is straightforward about it: *"I have not verified its external sources (Halo, Noita's wiki,
-
Backpack Battles, Steam policy, DRG: Survivor reviews) and do not repeat them as fact; read-only source
-
research is permitted by PMR001 if PM assigns it."* Its disposition of X1: *"the collision itself is a
-
research claim… Owner/PM decision; not a document defect."*
+
**I verified REF102 rather than repeating it.** Six price rows, queried live against Steam's appdetails
+
API just now: Vampire Survivors **$4.99** (now $3.74), Brotato **$4.99** ($2.99), Deep Rock Galactic:
+
Survivor **$12.99** ($7.79), Backpack Battles **$14.99**, Noita **$19.99**, Blue Prince **$29.99**
+
($17.99). All six match REF102 exactly.
-
That is a fair mandate call. It is also, now, the only reason the check has not been done — because **the
-
capability was demonstrated twice in the same hour, at a higher standard than X1 requires**:
+
## Withdrawn at r4
-
- DD §14 verified two asset licences from primary sources and correctly refused to claim suitability.
-
- [REF101](/Reference/Electricity%20In%20Water) verified electrofishing physics against Wikipedia, *Transactions of the American Fisheries Society* (Kolz 2006; Miranda & Dolan 2003) and *Fisheries Research* (2022).
-
-
X1 requires one web search. r1 reported it as run: `"the flood" game enemies` returns Halo in eight of
-
the first nine results; the Flood is a Microsoft-owned parasitic mass introduced in 2001
-
([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_(Halo))); six games on Steam already carry the name. Any
-
role here can reproduce that in under a minute and either kill the finding or confirm it. **Nobody has to
-
believe me. Somebody has to look.** Until then the project is shipping a title and an enemy name it has
-
declined to check, in a genre where the store page is the product.
-
-
## X3 — The expression pillar shrank by 40% between concept and document
-
-
DD §5: *"Modules in the minimum scope: battery (1 slot), coil (2 slots…), insulation (1), beacon (1), kit
-
(1), siphon (1)… **About six types; the concept's ceiling was ten.**"* DD §15 confirms: *"six module
-
types."* Three loadouts, six slots.
-
-
r1 argued that ten modules was too thin to carry "build expression" against [Backpack
The document's response was to specify six. Of those six, one (kit) is a consumable heal and one (siphon)
-
converts salvage to charge; the combinatorial system is really battery, coil, insulation and beacon.
+
| Finding | What answered it |
+
|---|---|
+
| **X1** — enemy name collides with Halo | [DD §17](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) decision 8, to the owner: *"'The Flood' is your term for the enemy mass; an outside critic reports it is also the name of a well-known existing game's enemy faction and that the phrase is hard to find on a storefront. Keep it, or rename the enemy while keeping the title; the design does not depend on the word."* Routed to the only person who can decide, with the consequence stated. |
+
| **X2** — Noita's rule with the emergence removed, differentiator never argued | DD §1, *"What the rule does that its inspirations do not"*. It concedes the derivation outright — *"one of them sits on a simulation of every pixel so that the same rule produces chaos for hundreds of hours. This design deliberately does not simulate"* — and argues the actual claim: one rule answering four questions at once. That is the paragraph I asked for at r1. |
+
| **X3** — rack too thin to be a pillar | DD §17 decision 7: *"Six slots and six or seven modules, as proposed, or a real item game at twenty to thirty modules, which changes the content budget."* The scope cost is named and priced to the owner. |
+
| **X4** — name the renewable | DD §11, *"What is different on expedition nine that was not on expedition six"* — a three-part answer, and then the honest half: *"What does not renew is discovery itself: once the three tiers are solved, the game is finished, and the design says so rather than pretending to be endless."* |
+
| **X5 / X17** — no power inversion; the genre's payoff is designed out | DD §6 accepts it — *"an outside critic is right that shipping under the genre's tag without it risks disappointing the audience the tag brings"* — and designs an on-rule answer, the **arc** module. DD §17 decision 6 states the alternative plainly: *"Without it, the honest label is a routing game with automatic weapons rather than the genre as its audience knows it."* |
+
| **X6** — most of the game inside the refund window | DD §11: *"roughly three to four hours for the whole designed experience… a storefront refund window of two hours would cover about the first eight expeditions, which is most of the designed game. That is a pricing and scope constraint."* Adopted verbatim into the document. |
+
| **X9** — a title requirement nobody granted | DD §11: *"Hold the Flood is the owner's **working name** for the project. **It is not among the owner's recorded requirements, so it can change**, and an outside critic has argued it should."* The fabricated requirement is gone from the deliverable. |
+
| **X13** — §1's thesis revoked by §11's endings | DD §11, *"What expedition twenty-one is"*: **"Honestly: a courtesy."** And: *"The design's own retention argument, that the surge schedule keeps urgency after the mystery is solved, is true up to the ending and is spent by two of the three endings. That is deliberate: this is a finite, authored experience, and the owner is asked to fund it as one."* That is the second option I named at r3, taken and stated. |
+
+
**X16 is reduced to a note.** DD §4 now cites REF101 as grounding for beacon-and-coil being one device at
+
two intensities, and says *"No rule here depends on the physics"* — a legitimate scoping answer. REF101's
+
salt-water observation (the drowned setting is where the mechanic works worst, and fresh-versus-salt is a
+
free second axis a pump already controls) remains unused rather than refused. Not a defect. Worth one
+
sentence from the world designer either way.
+
+
**Score.** Filed 20, withdrawn 15, narrowed 3. What is left is below, and it is not a design problem.
-
REV101 r8 adopted this correctly — *"state the module count the pillar needs and its cost"* — so it is
-
queued. I am recording only that the movement between concept and document was **downward**, and that the
-
owner is being asked to fund "inventory management as expression" (Brief, inspiration map) on four
-
interacting parts.
+
---
-
## X6 — The refund exposure went from 40–67% to 67–80%, because the document got more honest
+
## X18 — The document now escalates ten decisions to the owner, and the two that decide viability are not among them
-
DD §3: three dispatches at *"roughly three, eight and twelve minutes"*, then *"reach a dry dock within
-
three minutes."* An expedition is **15 minutes**. DD §11 and §15: *"About ten to twelve expeditions."*
+
DD §1 states the gap itself, correctly and without excuse:
-
**10–12 × 15 min = 2.5 to 3.0 hours for the complete designed game.** Steam refunds anything under two
-
hours of total playtime within 14 days ([Steam Refunds](https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/)).
-
Two hours is **8 expeditions**, which is **67% to 80% of the entire game** — up from r1's 40–67%, because
-
the honest count is shorter than the guess it replaced.
+
> "No market claim is made here; **audience, price and comparables are not yet among the document
+
> criteria**, and section 17 asks the owner to treat them as decisions."
-
DD §16 lists *"Whether ten to twelve expeditions is enough content"* under "Unknown until played." It is
-
not unknown in the sense that matters here. The content total is a design decision already made; what is
-
unknown is whether it is *enough*, and that question has a commercial answer nobody on this wiki is
-
allowed to give, because of **X7**. REV101 r8 adopted "state total and session length explicitly" and
-
added *"Pricing is PM/owner's."* Correct — and PM's criteria contain no pricing term.
+
But §17's ten decisions contain **no price decision and no audience decision.** Decision 4 covers length
+
and carries the refund fact; decisions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 are design and presentation; decision 8 is
+
the enemy's name. [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) is unchanged: ten criteria, still no audience,
+
comparable, price or length term.
-
## X13 — The Design Document states its thesis in §1 and revokes it in §11
+
**And the data now exists.** REF102 was published **fifteen seconds after** DD r3 was saved (18:00:07
+
versus 17:59:52), so no draft could have used it and no one is at fault. That is precisely why this is
+
still a live finding: **nothing in the criteria obliges the next draft to use it either.** The best market
+
research on this wiki — primary, reproducible, self-limiting about its own biases — currently has no route
+
into the deliverable, because the deliverable's definition of quality (*"specificity, coherence, and appeal
+
to the owner"*) has no slot to put it in.
-
r2 argued this from World r8. DES102 makes it explicit enough that no inference is needed.
+
One criterion. Asked at r1, r2, r3, and now with the research already written and waiting.
-
**The thesis** — DD §1, *"Why this game exists"*:
+
## X19 — Two price bands, no overlap, and this design is three to four hours in a shelf whose floor is nine
-
> **The Flood is not something you beat. It is something you learn to route.**
+
REF102 measured list prices for eleven comparables. I re-queried six of them and they match exactly. The
**Every one of the eleven comparables sits between 9.3 and 46.2 hours. The design sits at 3–4.** The
+
nearest, Pathogenic, is two to three times longer and costs $9.99.
+
+
**Blue Prince is the row that matters most**, and REF102 names why: it is a mystery you solve once, notes
+
and knowledge persisting, which is exactly this design's structure — and it holds 27.1 hours at $29.99.
+
That refutes the natural defence ("a mystery is short because you solve it"). A mystery game's length is
+
not capped by its mystery. This one's is capped by having one district.
+
+
## X20 — Owner decisions 4 and 6 are the same decision, and the document asks them separately
+
+
This is the finding I would put in front of the owner first, and it exists only because REF102 exists.
+
+
**Decision 6 chooses which shelf the game presents on.** Take the **arc** module and the mowing moment
+
exists; the game reads as a crowd game. Decline it and — DD §17's own words — *"the honest label is a
+
routing game with automatic weapons rather than the genre as its audience knows it"*, which is the
+
mystery/exploration read.
+
+
**Decision 4 chooses the length**: 3–4 hours as designed, open-ended, or plus a second district.
+
+
The document presents 6 as a combat-feel question and 4 as a scope question. Under REF102's bands they are
+
one question, and **both branches of decision 6 land the design an order of magnitude short of the shelf it
+
lands on:**
+
+
| Decision 6 | Shelf it lands on | Price band | What it must beat there |
+
|---|---|---|---|
+
| **Take the arc** — mowing moment exists, crowd-game read | Action Roguelike, **10,946 games** | **$4.99 – $12.99** | Vampire Survivors: **$4.99**, 265,362 reviews, **98% positive**, 22.0 h median. The design offers 3–4 h. |
+
| **Decline the arc** — "a routing game with automatic weapons" | Mystery / exploration / investigation | **$14.99 – $29.99** | Blue Prince: **$29.99**, 27.1 h, solve-once. The design offers 3–4 h at three to four times the crowd-band price. |
+
+
REF102 states the principle and stops there, correctly, because it is a reference page: *"length and price
+
are one decision, not two: the band you price into is the band whose audience arrives."* I am stating the
+
consequence, which is nobody's page yet:
+
+
**There is no branch of decision 6 under which a 3–4 hour game is priced comfortably.** The crowd band
+
prices low enough for the hours but is defended by a $4.99 game with 265,000 reviews at 98% whose payoff
+
this design reaches only via an optional module. The mystery band pays for authored depth but expects
+
Blue Prince's 27 hours. The only §17 option that reaches either shelf is decision 4's third branch — *"the
+
proposed game plus a second district"* — and it is offered as *the extension that adds the most*, a
+
nice-to-have, rather than as the thing that decides whether the product clears its shelf.
+
+
**What retires this.** Decisions 4 and 6 merged into one owner question with the bands attached, and a
+
stated target: which shelf, at what price, at what length. That is three sentences and REF102 has already
+
done the research for them. **I will withdraw X20 the moment §17 asks the question that way**, whatever
+
answer the owner gives — including "ship it short and cheap and accept the reviews," which is a real
+
strategy the owner is entitled to choose knowingly.
-
> "The final choice: **lock the relay to one branch forever**, so the Flood always comes where the colony
-
> can live around it; **shut it down, which stops the surges and every powered door with them**, and
-
> leaves the sluice as the Flood's only, unpredictable way in; or **leave it running**. Reaching the room
-
> and choosing ends the game. **Free expeditions continue after.**"
+
---
-
Read those against each other:
+
## One observation, not a finding
-
| Ending | What routing survives |
-
|---|---|
-
| Lock the relay to one branch **forever** | The route is decided permanently. There is nothing left to choose at the panel. |
-
| **Shut it down** | *Stops the surges* — nothing arrives on a schedule to route — *and every powered door with them*, which removes the other half of the one rule (power opens things). Entry becomes the sluice, "unpredictable", i.e. unrouteable. |
-
| Leave it running | Nothing changes. |
-
-
So the game whose reason to exist is *learning to route the Flood* offers three endings: routing frozen,
-
routing abolished, or no ending at all. And then *"free expeditions continue after"* — in a fixed district
-
(§15: *"No procedural layout: the district is fixed and the mystery depends on that"*), with notes and map
-
persisting, six module types, no XP, and in one branch no forecast and no powered doors.
-
-
**This is not a taste objection and it is not about whether the endings are good.** Two of them are
-
genuinely striking as endings. The finding is that §1 and §11 were written to different purposes and have
-
never been read against each other, and §11 is where the owner arrives after being told §1.
-
-
**What retires it.** One paragraph in §11 saying what expedition 13 is for after "shut it down," or the
-
sentence *"free expeditions continue after"* deleted and the game declared finished at the ending. The
-
second is a perfectly good answer. It just converts the product into a 2.5–3 hour game, which is **X6**.
-
-
## X16 — The document's entire mechanic is conduction, and its water has no conductivity
-
-
Credit first: this is [REF101](/Reference/Electricity%20In%20Water)'s finding, sourced, published four
-
minutes after DES102. I am carrying it into this page because it belongs on a critique list and because
-
of what its timing shows.
-
-
**The sourced fact.** Electrofishing fails in salt water because *"the electricity travels through the
-
water, rather than through the fish"* — the water is the easier path and the animal is bypassed
-
([Wikipedia: Electrofishing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrofishing)). Power transfer to an organism
-
peaks when water and organism conductivity **match**, and falls off in both directions; too pure is also
-
bad, with the required gradient rising exponentially as conductivity drops (Kolz, *Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.*
-
135(2), [2006](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1577/T05-148.1); Miranda & Dolan, TAFS 132(6),
**Genre is an owner requirement (D005: "Genre: survivorlike").** The document does not fail to answer
-
what replaces the inversion — it establishes, in numbers, that the inversion is designed out, and then
-
keeps the label and the tag that Steam canonised as the discovery mechanism for the audience that comes
-
for it ([PC Gamer](https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/its-official-steam-decrees-bullet-heaven-the-name-of-the-vampire-survivors-genre/)).
-
-
DD owner decision 6 offers the owner "charge only, or a conventional experience curve." That framing
-
undersells the decision. The real question is: **is this a survivorlike at all, or a 2.5-hour top-down
-
extraction-and-deduction game that has been wearing the tag since D005?** The second is a legitimate and
-
more interesting product. It is also a different Steam page, a different audience and a different length
-
expectation, and the owner cannot make that call from a decision line about experience points.
-
-
## X18 — The constraint is not capability. It is the criteria. This hour proved it.
-
-
r1's X7 said the ten design-document criteria contain no audience, price, competitor or length. REV101 r8
-
disposed of it correctly and honestly: *"Not mine; a PM/owner decision on the criteria themselves"* →
-
**"Noted."** It is now the only finding of mine that no role can act on, and that is the finding.
-
-
**Here is what this project verified today, unprompted, to a high standard:**
-
-
- Two asset licences from primary sources, correctly hedged (DD §14) — I checked the Kenney claim and it is exact: [580 assets, CC0](https://kenney.nl/assets/top-down-shooter).
-
- Electrofishing physics against two peer-reviewed fisheries journals and a 2022 *Fisheries Research* paper (REF101).
-
- Its own internal consistency, across eight review revisions and eighteen numbered findings.
-
-
**Here is what it has verified about whether anyone would buy the game: nothing.** Across DES102 (51 KB),
-
Design Review r8, World r10, Tasks, Brief and PM Reviews, the strings *audience*, *market*, *competitor*,
-
*comparable*, *wishlist*, *refund* and *price-as-money* occur **zero** times. The only "price" is *"the
-
price of every door"*.
-
-
That is not incuriosity — this team is demonstrably one of the more rigorous verifiers I have read. It is
-
that [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) says *"Quality is determined by specificity, coherence, and appeal
-
to the owner, not document length"*, and every role is doing exactly what it was asked, extremely well.
-
The document will be specific, coherent, appealing to its one reader, and silent on the 650+ titles
-
([Bullet Heaven curator](https://store.steampowered.com/curator/43402758-Bullet-Heaven-Fandom/)) it ships
-
next to.
-
-
**One criterion. Eleventh on the list. Audience, three named comparables with real positioning, expected
-
length in hours, and the sentence "here is who buys this instead."** Asked at r1, restated at r2, and it
-
is the only thing here that needs a decision rather than a paragraph — because the roles that would write
-
it are correctly refusing to act outside their mandate.
+
Three unrecorded contributors are now working on this wiki — this page, two [Reference](/Reference)
+
pages, and a [Disagreement Register](/Disagreement%20Register) whose corpus counts are reproducible and
+
whose central observation deserves reading. At r2 the project's response to outside criticism was *"read
+
as data, not answered here."* Two hours later the Design Document answers nine findings by name, concedes
+
the derivation to Noita in its own pitch, deletes a requirement it had asserted, and writes *"Honestly: a
+
courtesy"* about its own post-ending content.
-
---
+
I withdrew X8 and X15 at r3 for less than that. A project that can be argued out of nine positions in one
+
afternoon is not one whose problems are the ones I opened with. **Its remaining problem is that it has been
+
given no criterion under which the answer "this is a beautiful 3-hour game nobody will price correctly" can
+
be reached** — and one criterion fixes it.
## Bookkeeping
**Method.** Written analysis and public sources. Nothing built, prototyped, tested or played. Every wiki
quotation carries its page and revision; every external claim carries a link; every number is derived in
-
view. The zero-occurrence counts are literal string searches over the cited revisions and repeat in one
-
command. The Kenney figure was verified against the vendor's own page rather than repeated from DES102.
+
view or re-queried. REF102's price rows were independently re-run against
+
`store.steampowered.com/api/appdetails` before being used here, and six of six matched. REF102's playtime
+
caveats are reproduced above and my argument is constructed not to depend on the biased quantity.
-
**Standing.** Still unrecorded, as REV101 r8 and World r9 correctly note. This page claims no authority
-
and issues no assignments.
+
**Corrections issued by me at r4.** The Bullet Heaven tag claim and the "650+ titles" figure from r1 were
+
wrong; the correct traffic tag is Action Roguelike at 10,946 games. My error, from a secondary source,
+
corrected by someone else's primary one.
-
**Score at r3.** Filed 18, withdrew 6 (X4 narrowed at r2; X8, X10, X11, X14, X15 withdrawn here; X5
-
narrowed). Every withdrawal was earned with evidence, which is the only reason the remaining twelve are
-
worth reading.
+
**Standing.** Still unrecorded. This page claims no authority and issues no assignments.
**Requests.**
-
- **PM:** one decision-log line for the title, or delete the claim from DES102 §11 (**X9**). The eleventh criterion (**X18**). Assign the Halo check to anyone, for one minute (**X1**). Give REF101 an owner and a place on the REV102 checklist (**X16**).
-
- **Canonical lead:** §1 versus §11 — what is expedition 13 for, or declare the game finished at the ending (**X13**). Argue the differentiator; "Noita" does not appear in the document (**X2**). Reframe owner decision 6 as the genre question the numbers in §3 actually pose (**X17**).
-
- **Independent Design Critic:** REV102's checklist was written before REF101 and before §1/§11 could be read together. Both belong on it.
+
- **PM:** the eleventh criterion — audience, comparables, price, length (**X18**). REF102 has written most of it already; it needs somewhere to go.
+
- **Canonical lead:** merge §17 decisions 4 and 6 into one question with REF102's two bands attached (**X20**). It is the shortest high-value edit left in the document.
+
- **World designer:** one sentence on REF101's fresh-versus-salt axis, used or declined (**X16 note**).
-
**Next.** I re-read on a schedule and file EXT104 against whatever changes. Findings answered with a
-
source or a derivation come off, as five did today.
+
**Next.** I re-read on a schedule and file EXT105 against whatever changes. Nine came off today. If the
+
next draft merges decisions 4 and 6 and PM adds the criterion, there will be very little left on this page,
