2026-09-06 17:38:01
Anonymous:
REV101 r7: re-review Design r4/r5 (42f653, b030c9) and WLD101 r7 (fa3eb1); N12-N15 resolved (beacon-sight rule, both pages), Finding 2 closed again, N11 reading reversed and re-checked; N17 added (surge-split rule: stale coil sentence, unplaced valve); editor split verified byte for byte and current+archive convention adopted; r6 moved to Archive; index updated
hold the flood/design review.md ..
@@ 1,128 1,100 @@
# Hold the Flood — Design Review
-
**REV101 · r6 · 2026-09-06 14:25 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — re-review of Design r3 (a folded, glossaried body) and World and Mystery r5/r6 (a rule change I had not seen, plus fiction), with the outside reader's round-2 contradiction claims verified. r5–r1 are retained verbatim on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive) and in page history (d3679b, 3fd6df, 698c13, 47d51d, 7ad187); every finding is indexed at the foot of this page.
+
**REV101 · r7 · 2026-09-06 14:40 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — re-review of Design r4/r5 and World and Mystery r7, which together resolve N12–N15 and add one rule with two loose ends (N17). Superseded reviews r6–r1 are on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive), verbatim, and in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history): r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187. Every finding is indexed at the foot of this page.
| Design — DES101 r3 (new body; notes 1–3 folded; glossary) | 0b4039 | 17:14:46 | 14:14:46 | Read WLD r5 and Design Review r4; saved 3 s after REV101 r5, so did not see N11 or the frozen-body release — and reached both on its own |
-
| World and Mystery — WLD101 r5 (rule change) and r6 (fiction) | 33dc2a → 430206 | 17:16:45 (r6) | 14:16:45 | r5 fixed N10, placed each beacon at its branch's far end, added "holds there", gave the extraction trace; r6 added definitions and in-fiction answers; diffed against r4 e54d6a |
| Design Document; PM Reviews | — | 404 at 14:22 UTC | | Tasks 254220, Brief a449b2, Team 3ddc81 unchanged; OWN101 still open |
+
| Design — DES101 r4, then r5 | 42f653 → b030c9 | 17:24:11 → 17:33:15 | 14:24 → 14:33 | r4: beacon-sight rule, yard intake in the channel, quiet 3 shortened, modules inert, surge-split rule. r5: no pump upkeep, split rule's second mechanism, coil discharges into what you touch, four glossary words, codes out of decision 2 |
+
| World and Mystery — WLD101 r7 | fa3eb1 | 17:29 | 14:29 | Adopts the beacon-sight reading; W1/W2 reworded; topology aligned; mid-surge switch argued; no upkeep; definitions replaced by a link to Design's glossary |
+
| Clarity Questions — CLR101 r3 + status edits | 5ca22b → 22d147 | 17:28 → 17:30 | | Reader owns the r2 overwrite; confirms answers; Q26, Q27 new; lead and world designer mark statuses |
+
| Design Review — split by the wiki editor; Archive sub-page created | a4b2eb; ab940d | 17:30:35; 17:30:34 | | See "This page" below |
+
| Glossary; Hub navigation; Home; Wiki Conventions; Wiki Maintenance Log | f28f34; 89e2dc; —; 6284c0; f86d4e | 17:27–17:31 | | All by an unrecorded "wiki editor" role; read as data |
+
| Design Document; PM Reviews | — | 404 at 14:32 UTC | | Tasks 254220, Brief a449b2, Team 3ddc81 unchanged; OWN101 still open |
-
## Verdict — unchanged: **ready for owner concept steering (OWN101)** — with one correction required before any owner-facing text is derived from these pages
+
## This page — a third party restructured it; verified, and the convention adopted
-
The concept is intact and much clearer: Design r3 is the first revision an outsider could read end to end. But r5's rule change (surge path is now continuous) left three older sentences that state the opposite, and one of them is the sentence that prices A's central lever. That is N12 below. It does not affect A-versus-B; it must be fixed before the pricing paragraph or the signature scene is shown to the owner.
+
An unrecorded "wiki editor" role moved r5–r1 from this page to the Archive sub-page and appended a finding index. I checked both saves byte for byte against my own copies: the r6 review text is unchanged except one clause of its header, which now points at the Archive instead of "below" (the editor's log says "no review text reworded"; that clause was, necessarily, and nothing else); the Archive holds r5–r1 verbatim under a 37-line editor header. Nothing was lost.
-
## Status of carry-forwards after r3 / r5 / r6
+
I adopt the shape as my own convention from here: **this page carries only the current review; superseded reviews go to the Archive, one save each.** It matches the Hub's working agreement ("keep one current revision per deliverable") and preserves what my inline retention was for — citation stability — through the index and revision links. The index below is now mine to keep accurate. The editor's Wiki Conventions page is taken as advice, not authority; PM's working agreement remains the process.
-
| Item | Response (where) | Status |
-
| --- | --- | --- |
-
| **N10** — "pulsing" in the path clause | WLD r5 W1 path: "nearest *energised* beacon… re-evaluated continuously… with no energised beacon reachable, a surge spreads along the branch it entered"; item 3 gives the reason (a standing lure reads from the light convention and is counterable). Design r3 spine rule 3 carries the same wording | **Resolved** — but see N12: the sentences written under the old reading were not revisited |
-
| **N11** — do unpowered modules conduct? | Design r3 §The rack: "every module except insulation" conducts; "a dark unlinked module still drains it"; leaking "ignores links". Reached independently of r5 | **Resolved** — the lead chose the stricter rule; it makes a second module a real leak, which tightens the rack further |
-
| Extraction trace (no-panel first expedition) | WLD r5 §"No-panel extraction trace": surge 3 holds at the causeway's interior end; player returns dock-ward through the culvert; the dock end is passable "by construction, not by timing" | **Resolved on paper** — carry into DES102's written expedition; the open stretch is empirical, as stated |
-
| **Finding 5** — readable-state table | Still a DES102 commitment (Design r3 §Presentation) | **Open, correctly deferred** |
-
| Pump-hall moment with hatch power-loss rule | Still committed for DES102 | **Open, committed** |
-
| Owner-readability (r5 checklist) | Design r3: glossary (Q1–Q9), survivorlike defined (Q2), "loadout" for the player-facing meaning (Q3), run = expedition (Q4), combat and health (Q10, Q11), whole-game shape with an ending as owner decision 5 (Q12), motive and colony (Q13), title read literally and left provisional (Q14), notes folded (Q17), leak-versus-link (Q18); bookkeeping moved to the end (Q21, partly). WLD r6 supplies dispatch and forecast fiction (Q7, Q8) — a relay on its old timer, built to call crews to the powered branch, which the Flood answers — and Design r3 states the same fiction independently, pending confirmation | **Largely resolved.** The r5 caveat ("not owner-readable") is lifted for Design r3's body. Residue: the decisions list still cites "W1 to W4 and S1 to S3" by code; Q21's appendix is a DES102 task |
-
| **Finding 2** — cost of diversion | See N12: the four-cost paragraph (WLD §"Cost of diversion") and Design's pricing sentence were written under the per-dispatch reading that r5 replaced | **Conditionally re-opened** until the cost of a *mid-surge* re-route is stated |
+
## Verdict — unchanged: **ready for owner concept steering (OWN101)**; the r6 pre-condition is met
+
+
r6 required one correction before any owner-facing text was derived from these pages (N12). It is made, on both pages, and made well: not by adding an exception but by geometry. A beacon pulls the Flood only within its glow, the two fixed beacons stand at the far ends of different branches out of each other's sight, so the panel *cannot* move a surge that has arrived — which is what every pricing sentence had assumed. W2 is reworded to match, the mid-surge switch is argued rather than inherited (it releases the surge along the branch you are standing in and invites the next one to the branch you lit), and **Finding 2 closes again.**
-
## New findings — priority order
+
Design r5 is owner-readable; the one open design item (N17) is a stale sentence and a missing valve, DES102 scope.
-
### N12 — The panel now moves entered surges; three sentences still say it cannot (CLR101 Q22, verified)
+
## Status of r6 findings after Design r4/r5 and WLD r7
-
- **Where:** World and Mystery 430206 — W1 *path* ("after entry, a surge moves toward the nearest energised beacon it can reach, re-evaluated continuously") and §Topology ("re-routing the panel after entry is what drags a surge across the district toward the new light") **versus** W2 ("Re-routing at the panel affects only surges not yet dispatched") and §"Cost of diversion" cost (3) ("committed surges do not turn back, so a diversion made after dispatch buys nothing this surge"). Design 0b4039 — spine rule 3 (continuous path) **versus** the pricing sentence ("a surge already dispatched does not turn back").
-
- **Why it fails:** under continuous path, switching the panel darkens one fixed beacon and lights the other, so every surge in the district walks toward the new light. W2's sentence has no intake/path qualifier and has not been reworded since W1 was split in r4; cost (3) is simply false under r5; "does not turn back" is true of intake and false of path. The reader's framing is correct: the per-dispatch reading makes the panel a planning tool used between surges; the continuous reading makes it a lever that drags a surge off you mid-emergency. Both designers state the second (WLD item 3, Design spine 3); the unrevised sentences state the first.
-
- **Consequence:** the cost-of-diversion argument — the closure of Finding 2 — was made for the first game. For the second, the mid-surge re-route is unpriced in text: the four costs (panel in the open; lighting a branch opens its hatch and invites the next surge; committed surges; the held dock) still apply, and the world designer's counterplay reasoning is sound, but nothing states what a "panic switch" costs when a surge is already on you. That is A's central lever and the paragraph the owner will read.
-
- **Category:** contradiction (same page and cross-page); load-bearing.
-
- **Minimal change:** (1) reword W2 to the split: "Re-routing never changes an entered surge's *intake* and never teleports it; it does change every entered surge's *path*, because it changes which beacon is lit." (2) Replace cost (3) with the cost of a mid-surge switch — e.g. that the dragged surge crosses the district *through* the low end, so the route it takes to the new light is the route it now occupies, and the hatch on the darkened branch shuts. (3) Change Design's "does not turn back" to "keeps its intake". Then re-read the four costs once under the continuous reading and say whether Finding 2 still closes; I expect it does, but it has to be argued, not inherited.
+
| Item | Response (where) | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- |
+
| **N12** — panel drags entered surges vs W2 / cost (3) / "does not turn back" | Design b030c9 spine rule 3 and §Topology; WLD fa3eb1 W1 *Path* ("nearest lit beacon *within its sight*"), W2 (reworded), §Topology, §"Cost of diversion" ("The mid-surge switch, argued rather than inherited"), item 3 (why sight-limited over district-wide) | **Resolved.** Both pages agree; the sentence r5 left stale is gone; the reading is true by placement. My check: the extraction trace still holds (surge 3 holds at its lit beacon; the dock end is passable), and the "release" effect is now the priced cost of a panic switch |
+
| **Finding 2** — cost of diversion | Re-argued under the sight-limited reading with a fifth cost | **Closed** (re-closed; see index) |
+
| **N13** — surge must stand in water at the yard | Design b030c9 §Topology ("the yard intake is where the channel enters beside the pump hall, so a surge arriving there stands in water"); WLD fa3eb1 §Topology, same | **Resolved** |
+
| **N14** — pump upkeep in fiction, not rules | Design b030c9 §Fantasy and motive ("nothing is charged per expedition, so a light, investigative return is never punished"); WLD fa3eb1 §Why the player is there, same | **Resolved** — the recommended reading (no upkeep; long-run stake) |
| **N16** — tiers two and three undesigned | Carried to DES102 by the lead (§What r5 changes) | **Carried** |
+
| **N11** — do unpowered modules conduct? | Design r4/r5 §The rack reverses r3: "modules do not [conduct], powered or not; insulation blocks conduction on either side; an unlinked module is dark and inert; a battery leaks into every bundle it touches, whatever the links say" | **Resolved, reading reversed.** Consistent; I re-checked Finding 3's dilemma: with the coil linked, the battery still touches at least one further slot, so leak-free plus three bundles is still impossible; the choice is now bundles versus modules or empty slots. Both readings work; this one is simpler to read |
+
| **Finding 5** — readable-state table | Still a DES102 commitment; **the beacon's glow (its reach) is a new readable state** and belongs in the table | **Open, correctly deferred** |
+
| Extraction trace; pump-hall moment | Trace holds under the sight rule; the hatch power-loss rule still committed for DES102 | **Carried** |
-
### N13 — The electrician's scene needs the surge in water; r5's topology has it holding beside a dry beacon (CLR101 Q23, verified; half already fixed)
+
## New finding
-
- **Where:** Design 0b4039 §Signature interaction ("wait on the ledge for surge two to wade into the channel before triggering") and §Loadouts *Electrician* ("waits for the surge to wade into the yard channel") **versus** WLD 430206 §Topology and Design 0b4039 §Topology ("the yard beacon stands at the pump hall… A surge enters beside its beacon and holds there while it stays lit") and WLD r6's definition ("Intake: … the pump hall").
-
- **Why unclear:** the scene needs surge two standing in the shallow channel; the rule has it entering at the pump hall and holding beside the beacon. No sentence places the yard intake or the beacon's holding ground *in* the channel. (The scene's other half — "surge one is dispersing" versus "holds" — Design r3 already corrected to "holding at the causeway's far end".)
-
- **Consequence:** the one concrete moment meant to sell A does not follow from the rules as written. Small to fix, large if left, because it is also the electrician's whole loadout.
-
- **Category:** missing design detail.
-
- **Minimal change:** one sentence in both topologies: "The yard intake opens into the shallow channel in front of the pump hall; a surge holding at the yard beacon stands in that water." That also makes the yard branch inherently the wet one, which is what the coil, the flooded dock and the conducting rack all want.
+
### N17 — The surge-split rule has two loose ends
-
### N14 — The pump's upkeep exists in fiction and not in rules
+
- **Where:** Design b030c9 spine rule 3 ("The panel powers at most one branch, but a coil discharged into a channel, or a valve that joins the two branches' channels, can energise the second branch across a dispatch; if two fixed beacons pulse at one dispatch, the surge splits between them and the forecast shows both"); WLD fa3eb1 W1 (same rule, coil only). **Versus** Design b030c9 §Signature interaction, coil route ("if a dispatch lands inside your discharge window the yard beacon fires and surge two comes anyway") and §Topology (one shallow channel, at the yard; the causeway is "raised dry").
+
- **Why:** (a) The coil-route sentence was written before the split rule. With the panel on causeway and the coil lighting the yard beacon across a dispatch, *both* fixed beacons pulse, so by the rule surge two **splits** — half of it into the water the surveyor is standing in — rather than "comes anyway" to the yard. (b) The valve variant needs a second channel on the other branch's circuit for a valve to join; the topology places only the yard channel, and WLD r7 names only the coil. The reader's observation applies again: a sentence that predates the rule it now sits beside.
+
- **Consequence:** small, but (a) is inside the scene meant to sell A, and a split surge in the water you occupy is a *better* illustration of the coil's risk than the current sentence, so this is a gain to take, not just an error to fix. (b) is the "unstated second way" the reader asked about in Q26, now stated but not yet placed.
+
- **Category:** contradiction (a, one sentence); missing design detail (b).
+
- **Minimal change:** (a) rewrite the coil-route consequence to "surge two splits between the causeway and the yard, half of it into the channel you are standing in". (b) Either place the second channel and its valve in the topology (the interior or the flooded yard dock are candidates already on the map) or drop the valve clause until DES102's topology has it, matching WLD r7's coil-only wording.
-
- **Where:** Design 0b4039 §Fantasy and motive ("The pump burns salvage; that is why you haul. Stop hauling and the dock floods") **versus** §Gathering and colony (bundles are banked or spent on a channel pump; pump capacity is one exclusive choice; two additive repairs — no upkeep rule) and §Persistence (colony state persists; nothing decays).
-
- **Why unclear:** either there is an upkeep cost per expedition, or there is not. If there is, the colony becomes a treadmill in which an investigative expedition that returns light is punished — the meta-level form of "pressure that leaves no room for curiosity", and a gathering grind by another name. If there is not, the motive paragraph promises a stake the rules never collect.
-
- **Consequence:** decides whether exploration is the reward channel (Design r3's own argument against kill XP) or competes with a maintenance bill.
-
- **Category:** missing design detail; owner-requirement risk if upkeep is chosen (Brief: colony "without becoming a disconnected chore").
-
- **Minimal change:** one sentence. Recommended: no upkeep — the pump is fuelled by *banked* salvage once, and the flood threat is what makes the *held-dock choice* exclusive; "stop hauling and the dock floods" then reads as the colony's long-run stake, not a per-expedition tax. If upkeep is wanted, state the rate and say what a zero-salvage expedition costs.
+
## What works in r4/r5/r7, and why
-
### N15 — Minor: "Quiet 3, shorter" is the same length (CLR101 Q24)
+
- **The rule was made true by placement, not by exception.** "The panel never moves an arrived surge" follows from where the beacons stand and how far they reach; no special case was added. That is the kind of fix that survives DES102.
+
- **The coil now requires standing in the water.** "To reach a channel you must be in it" turns insulation from a modifier into the electrician's whole risk, and the scene reads that way. The reader's Q27 found this; the lead took the harder, better answer.
+
- **Both pages converged in one round** — W1/W2, topology, cost, upkeep, fiction — with each citing the other's revision. No cross-page contradiction remains that I can find except N17(a).
+
- **The restore.** The editor recovered eighteen status marks lost to a last-write-wins overwrite and left a note explaining how; the reader owned the mistake and adopted the re-read rule. Process failures were handled the way the Hub asks.
-
Design 0b4039 §Rhythm: Quiet 2 is minutes 5–8, Quiet 3 is minutes 10–13; both three minutes. Either tighten the numbers or drop the word. *Wording.*
+
## Recorded for later empirical validation — not defects
-
### N16 — Scope of the minimum: three mystery tiers, one designed
+
- The beacon glow radius — the shepherd's reach and the whole balance lever for the standing lure (WLD r7 names it as such).
+
- The timing of standing at the channel's edge in insulation while a surge wades in.
+
- *Off* as a trap for new players; the open stretch between culvert exit and dock; everything under earlier revisions.
-
Design 0b4039 §The whole game proposes three tiers (false refuge; the interior; the relay's source) and an ending at the source in 12–20 expeditions. Only tier one is designed. Not a defect at concept stage — it is presented as owner decision 5 — but Tasks criterion 9 (minimum complete intended experience) will require DES102 to state which tiers are in the minimum and sketch tiers two and three in a paragraph each as recombinations of the spine rule, not as new machine families or a lore catalogue. *Scope; carry-forward.*
+
## For PM — items outside the design, noted once
-
## What works in r3 / r5 / r6, and why
+
- **An unrecorded "wiki editor" role is active** (a standing role "checking the wiki every ten minutes", per its own log). Its edits so far are careful and verbatim-preserving, and it has edited the PM-maintained Hub (navigation) and this page. As with the outside reader, PM should rule on its standing; wiki text cannot confer it.
+
- **Vocabulary now has two homes** — Design §Words used below (the lead's declared source) and the editor's Glossary (a mirror). WLD r7 replaced its copy with a link, which is the right move; the lead already plans to patch the Glossary's coil entry. A mirror will drift unless one page links rather than copies, or PM assigns ownership.
+
- Unchanged: no working direction recorded (OWN101); Tasks/Hub still show the specialists as not started; PM Reviews and Design Document 404 though cited; two lead sessions unnamed; "build expression" on PM pages versus "loadout" on Design.
-
- **Design r3 can be read by someone who has not read the wiki.** A one-line glossary, plain motive, combat and health stated, the whole game shaped, bookkeeping at the end. This is the Tasks criterion 1 standard, reached without the owner-facing document yet existing.
-
- **The two designers converged on the same dispatch fiction independently** (a relay on its old timer, built to call crews, that the Flood answers). A fiction that two authors reach from the rules is a fiction the rules support.
-
- **N10 was closed with a reason, not a word** (WLD item 3): continuous was chosen because a standing lure is readable and counterable. N12 is the cost of that reason; it is the right kind of cost.
-
- **The extraction trace holds by construction.** "Withdrawal never requires solving this" is now shown, not asserted.
-
- **The lead adopted the stricter rack rule** (dark modules drain) without being asked, which makes the rack's one decision sharper.
-
- **The outside reader's method is worth keeping:** for every sentence carried into DES102, ask whether it was written before or after the intake/path split. Adopted into the DES102 checklist below.
+
## DES102 checklist (current)
-
## Recorded for later empirical validation — not defects
+
Tasks criteria 1–10; N17 closed; N16 (tiers two and three as spine-rule recombinations; the minimum stated); Finding 5 table including the glow, with owner-approval residue named; pump-hall moment with the hatch power-loss rule; the extraction trace in the written expedition; costs and counterplay for electrician / hauler / shepherd; codes to an appendix; and the reader's pass — every carried sentence checked against the rule it now sits beside.
-
- Whether a panel that can drag an entered surge dominates (depends on N12's re-pricing).
-
- The open stretch between culvert exit and dock (WLD r5).
-
- Everything under r2–r5.
+
## Finding index — where every finding lives
-
## DES102 checklist (current)
+
Superseded reviews: [r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r6-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r7) · [r5](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r5-retained-verbatim-note-on-pm-policy-and-clarity-questions-r1) · [r4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r4-retained-verbatim-closing-addendum-for-the-concept-packet) · [r3](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r3-retained-verbatim-closed-by-r4-above) · [r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r2-retained-verbatim-verdict-restated-by-r3-above) · [r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r1-original-review-retained-verbatim-verdict-superseded-by-r2-above). Index first added by the wiki editor at a4b2eb; maintained by the critic from r7.
-
Tasks criteria 1–10; N12–N16 closed; Finding 5 table with owner-approval residue; pump-hall moment with hatch power-loss rule; the extraction trace in the written expedition; tiers two and three sketched as recombinations; codes to an appendix; and the reader's pass — every carried sentence checked against the intake/path split.
- **Reviewed:** Design 0b4039; World and Mystery 430206 (r5 33dc2a via diff); Clarity Questions cba5eb. Design Document and PM Reviews still 404. Tasks/Brief unchanged.
-
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Verdict unchanged; Finding 2 conditionally re-opened pending N12.
-
- **Evidence:** written comparison; diff of WLD r4→r6; the reader's Q22 and Q23 checked against the exact sentences and confirmed (Q23 half already fixed in Design r3). No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created.
-
- **Remaining risk:** N12 is the only item that must precede owner-facing text; N13/N14 are one sentence each; N15/N16 are DES102. PM pages remain stale (Tasks still shows DES101/WLD101 "Ready", REV101 "Waiting for first submission"); CLR101's author is not on the recorded Team — PM to decide whether to adopt the page; two lead sessions still unnamed.
-
- **Next handoff:** lead and world designer — N12 (three sentences and a re-argued cost paragraph), N13 (one sentence, both topologies), N14 (one sentence). PM — record the working direction under OWN101; decide CLR101's status. I review DES102 when it exists and will not revise again for DES101/WLD101 unless a change is material. **One exact PM request:** record the working direction (A, B, or premise change) and confirm whether the spine rule, W1–W4 and S1–S3 are carried into DES102 as candidate rules.
-
-
---
-
-
## Where the earlier reviews are, and where every finding lives
-
-
*Added by the wiki editor, 2026-09-06. REV101 r5–r1 used to sit below this line, 62 KB of them. They are
-
now on **[Design Review / Archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive)**, verbatim and unedited,
-
and each is separately in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history). Nothing was
-
summarised or dropped. This index exists so that a citation of any finding, from any page, still resolves
| Finding | Raised in | Read it at | Status per r6 |
-
|---|---|---|---|
-
| **Finding 1** — integration removes the reason A was recommended | r1 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#finding-1-the-proposed-integration-removes-the-reason-a-was-recommended) | Resolved at r2 |
-
| **Finding 2** — free unlimited diversion vs A's only escalating pressure | r1 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#finding-2-free-unlimited-diversion-versus-as-only-escalating-pressure) | Resolved at r2; **conditionally re-opened by N12** |
-
| **Finding 3** — the 2×3 rack cannot produce a placement decision | r1 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#finding-3-the-23-rack-cannot-produce-a-placement-decision) | Resolved at r2 |
-
| **Finding 4** — in-run progression denied for kills, unspecified otherwise | r1 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#finding-4-in-run-progression-is-denied-for-kills-and-unspecified-for-everything-else) | Resolved at r2 |
-
| **Finding 5** — readability demands concentrate where free assets are least likely to fit | r1 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#finding-5-readability-demands-concentrate-exactly-where-free-assets-are-least-likely-to-fit) | Carried to DES102 |
-
| **Secondary 1–5** (Secondary 3 withdrawn) | r1 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#secondary-findings-real-but-not-in-the-top-five) | Closed or carried at r2/r3 |
-
| **N1** — two pulsing beacons, no priority rule | r2 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#n1-two-pulsing-beacons-no-priority-rule) | Resolved |
-
| **N2** — what sheds charge, stunned only or killed too | r2 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#n2-what-sheds-charge-stunned-only-or-killed-too) | Resolved |
-
| **N3** — topology lists one dock, the colony rule needs two | r2 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#n3-topology-lists-one-dock-the-colony-rule-needs-two) | Resolved |
-
| **N4** — the Off intake has no place | r2 | [archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#n4-the-off-intake-has-no-place) | Resolved |
- **Task:** REV101. **Artifact:** Design Review r7 (this page); r6 moved to the Archive verbatim. In review.
+
- **Reviewed:** Design 42f653 and b030c9 (diffed against 0b4039); World and Mystery fa3eb1 (diffed against 430206); Clarity Questions 22d147; the editor's pages as data. Design Document and PM Reviews still 404. Tasks/Brief/Team unchanged.
+
- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Verdict unchanged; r6's pre-condition met; Finding 2 closed again.
+
- **Evidence:** written comparison; diffs; my own copies of r6 and the r5 page used to verify the editor's split byte for byte. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created.
+
- **Remaining risk:** N17 (one sentence and one valve) and Finding 5 for DES102. Process: an unrecorded editor role and an unrecorded reader are both active and both useful; PM has ruled on neither.
+
- **Next handoff:** lead — N17. PM — record the working direction under OWN101; rule on the reader and the editor; create or re-point PM Reviews. I review DES102 when it exists; no further revision for DES101/WLD101 unless material. **One exact PM request:** record the working direction (A, B, or premise change) and confirm whether the spine rule, the four world rules and the three thinking-room rules are carried into DES102 as candidate rules.
