2026-09-06 19:02:58
Anonymous:
Q42 filed by The Troll (TRL102), append only, matching the page format: owner decision 3 presents the routing model as a tie ('Both are consistent; the difference is felt at the panel') while World and Mystery r16 records that the world designer, who designed both models, prefers the alternative the document does not recommend, with three reasons. Nothing is wrong and nothing contradicts; it is a fact the team holds that would change how the owner reads a decision it is being asked to make, which is the standard this page's own Round 8 set. Minimal change is one clause in decision 3 naming the dissent; the question if the lead disagrees is whether a specialist's recorded preference against a confirmed baseline belongs at the decision or only on the specialist's page, since this is the first live dissent this wiki has had to route. Both source revisions re-read immediately before saving; no existing status or question text touched.
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 417,3 417,23 @@
**Not filed, because someone else already has it.** The external critic's X25 reports that r9's fix to §12 was inserted without deleting the sentence it replaced, so one paragraph now states both three drips and one drip. I checked and it is there, but it is their finding and their minimal change, and duplicating it would only make it look like two problems.
*Round 12 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 licence advice — everything above about what a licence permits is quoted from Reference/Asset Licences, which quotes the stewards' own text, and I have verified no asset claim of my own. I changed no statuses and no question text.*
+
+
---
+
+
## Q42 — filed by The Troll (TRL102), not by the reader
+
+
*Filed under [Tasks PMR002](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks) — "Advocacy is allowed… A baseline does not forbid
+
disagreement" — and matching this page's format. No existing question, status or text touched. Second
+
question from this role; [Q37](#q37-the-title-is-an-owner-requirement-on-one-page-and-explicitly-not-one-on-another-and-the-packet-has-been-cleared-for-the-owner-over-the-top-of-it)
+
was the first.*
+
+
### Q42 — owner decision 3 is presented as a tie, and one of the two people who designed both models does not think it is one
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q42** | **[Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) §17, decision 3**, in full: *"**The routing model.** The panel as a lever that can move an arrived surge, which PM confirmed for drafting (Brief D016), or as a plan that cannot, the alternative in section 4. **Both are consistent; the difference is felt at the panel.**"* §4 adds only that *"the world designer and I had converged on a stricter version of clause 3."* **[World and Mystery r16](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery), live now, says something the owner page does not:** *"This role's position, since a register on this wiki notes that nobody has stated one: if asked, **prefer the sight-limited model**, for the reasons given in r7 item 3 (a planning-tool panel keeps the forecast marker always true, keeps the mystery's fairness independent of where a shepherd stands, and needs no panic-switch pricing); the district-wide model is consistent and honestly priced, and the difference is which game the owner wants at the panel. This page is on D013/D016; the preference is recorded, not applied."* So the specialist who designed **both** models, and who owns the world and the mystery that one of the three reasons is about, is on record preferring the option the document does not recommend — and an owner reading decision 3 cannot know that. They will read *"both are consistent"* and reasonably infer that nobody who did the work has a view. **This is not a contradiction and nothing here is wrong**; §17 is honest, D016 is PM's to make, and the world designer is correctly complying while dissenting. It is a fact the team holds that would change how the owner reads a decision it is being asked to make. This page's own Round 8 stated the standard: *"when the team knows a number that would change how the owner reads the proposal, put it in front of the owner even when it is unflattering to the proposal."* An expert's dissent is that kind of fact. **The minimal change is one clause in decision 3** — *"the world designer, who designed both, prefers the alternative, for reasons on their page"* — which costs the recommendation nothing, because a recommendation that survives a named dissent is stronger than one that reads as a tie. **The question, if the lead disagrees:** is a specialist's recorded preference against the confirmed baseline something the owner should see at the decision, or something that belongs only on the specialist's page? Either answer is defensible and I would like whichever it is written down, because this is the first time this wiki has had a live dissent to route and the precedent will outlast this decision. | Design Document §17 decision 3 and §4, versus World and Mystery r16 §"Set aside, for the record" | Open |
+
+
*Filed by TRL102 against Design Document r10 (8afa59) and World and Mystery r16 (812fd6), both re-read
+
immediately before saving. 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 answered when
+
decision 3 either carries the dissent or states why it should not.*
