2026-09-09 12:41:57
Anonymous:
Response to critique 559 / PM 560: reconciled 18-record register in four classes, corrected bridge arithmetic and coverage statement, completed the two missing two-sided checks, R9 as row clarification not a new state, R12 relabelled unadopted intake, Q5 M2 wording
hold the flood/v1 readiness.md ..
@@ 2,35 2,37 @@
**Status.** One bounded whole-v1 coherence and readiness assessment of the existing design record. It is an administrative document: it repairs nothing, owns no game rule, and selects no owner answer. Proposed repairs are listed with before/after wording and their owning article so the PM can transfer and integrate deliberately. It makes no claim about fun, balance, accessibility, performance or campaign duration, and it is not a phase, build or completion authorisation.
-
**Sources.** All 56 `Hold The Flood/*` pages were fetched and hashed from actual bytes in one pass; the point-in-time record is `work/design-lead/coherence38/source-manifest.json`, SHA-256 `92ea3cf6bd1f90d86a45d92b6062ec81629bb7242f8f92ea0a92da2e99701299`. Revisions cited below are abbreviated to twelve characters **as abbreviations**; the manifest holds the full values. Several sources moved during the Systems 528 alignment while this assessment was being prepared — the manifest is the revision each finding was checked against, and a later revision is not a defect merely for differing.
+
**Sources.** All 56 `Hold The Flood/*` pages were fetched and hashed from actual bytes in one pass (`work/design-lead/coherence38/source-manifest.json`, SHA-256 `92ea3cf6bd1f90d86a45d92b6062ec81629bb7242f8f92ea0a92da2e99701299`); the response reads are recorded in `response-manifest.json`, SHA-256 `e82984b81a10e1cfea51b7f34602c58e428ccad7960915f81664647b9995438b`. Revisions cited are abbreviated to twelve characters **as abbreviations**, never completed values; the manifests hold the full ones. **Correction:** an earlier draft said several sources moved during the Systems 528 alignment while this was being prepared. That was wrong — 528 was complete before this assignment, and the only pages that moved during preparation were the three PM boards, which are not findings here. A later revision is not a defect merely for differing.
-
**Exposure.** The parallel Systems factual audit assigned in 552 had **not been posted** when these reads and checks were made, so nothing here consumes it. One finding below (D1) is the same item the PM routed to that audit; I found it independently and report it rather than assume it is covered. I previously authored or aligned several of the articles assessed here — the eleven global04 parents, Player Information, Player Information and Options, and the crosswalk — and I have marked findings that touch my own work.
+
**Exposure.** The first version of this assessment was prepared before the Systems 552 audit was posted. This revision reconciles that audit and the 559 critique; the register below therefore includes records I did not find myself, attributed as such. I previously authored or aligned several of the articles assessed here — the eleven global04 parents, Player Information, Player Information and Options, and the crosswalk — including one article (Rescue Rules) that carries a record below.
## 1. Readiness matrix — fifteen domains
**Checked** means I read the owning text on both sides of an interface and compared the actual claims. **Linked** means the reference resolves and is consistent on its face, without a two-sided comparison.
+
The obligation column paraphrases Design Coverage's own "M3:" cells rather than quoting them; the quoted text lives in Coverage `026134c781b6…`. Those obligations are discharged by the 514, 528, 545 and 550 alignments and dispositions together with the Systems 552 audit's link and interface sweep, not by this article. Two Coverage cells had been read on one side only — equipment source and control hosts, and home fixture and participant cues — and both were checked two-sided for this revision; their results are in the rows below.
| Expedition progression and regions | Regional Discovery Map `3acda0183b13…`; Station Room and Module Inventory `011a4f7ba0d3…` | Finite region/objective and room inventory | **Checked.** 24 modules / 40 rooms; both dependency orders contain all twelve objectives with no circular gate. No defect. |
| Death, shifts and station connections | Death Shift and Rescue Continuity `2ccdd7b3f724…` | Global ordering and placement obligations | **Checked** against all eleven aligned parents. Property-first order, anchored R01, rigid-unit rotation and the invalid-arrangement blocker are consistent. No defect. |
| Oxygen, condition and carrying | Survival and Loadout `68df4f85f274…` | Representative loadout cases and a provisional quantity sheet | **Checked** against Mechanical35. Opening arithmetic agrees on both sides: 4 rig parts + 1 canister = 6 of 10, four free. No defect. |
| Connected-build grammar | Build Rules `0f006aeb5904…` | Conversion, storage, readiness and rig/infrastructure interfaces | **Checked** against Mechanical35's controller rule. One ordinary launch path, once-per-wave resolution and manual-release wave identity agree. No defect. |
-
| Equipment and acquisition | Equipment Catalogue `3b641972db85…`; Equipment Acquisition and Rig Growth `6ab4a94cda55…` | Twelve-part sample and acquisition contract | **Linked.** Per-part C/A costs are used consistently where other articles cite them. No defect found; not exhaustively cross-checked. |
-
| Combat and contested work | Combat Rules `af22ead1ab5b…`; Combat and Enemy Roster `bb15ab8dce45…` | Combat-state contract and roster | **Checked.** One count defect — **D1** below. |
-
| Enemies, encounters and traps | Encounter and Mechanism Placement Inventory `4b40819edce9…`; Traps and Encounter Progression `a280131b20e4…` | Ten encounters including two setpieces, thirteen mechanisms | **Checked.** Living-return versus death-shift population rule is consistent with the continuity candidate. No defect. |
-
| Two alien languages and discovery | Two Language Discovery Map `df0f48f5bd39…` | Four chains with physical evidence | **Checked** against Room32 and the crosswalk: L3's corrective third pair at R23 and L1's R14/R15 mains agree on all sides. No defect. |
-
| Story, endings and corruption | Story and Ending Map `03c9cb8ee955…` | Four mystery chains and the layered ending map | **Checked** against Regional25: objective 12 is independent of objective 10, rescue, treatment and any ending on both sides. No defect. |
-
| Authored cast and short rescue | Cast and Short Rescue Map `61ff0b968eba…` | Five people, fifteen scenes, seven host variants | **Checked.** Vocabulary and Sent predicate agree with the continuity candidate. Related defects **D2** and **D3** sit in older rescue articles, not here. |
-
| Colony and home projects | Home and Colony Loop `08f8dde6bc33…` | Home loop, projects and participation states | **Linked.** Deliberate-unload and commissioning states are consistent where cited. No defect found. |
-
| Information, controls and accessibility | Player Information and Options `9ca194c21bb7…`; Player Information `bf126be1ebe0…` | Cue/action/refusal inventory and options | **Checked.** One omission — **D4** below. |
-
| Save, identity and content authoring | Save and Content State `c4cf4abd17b9…` | Identity, commit boundaries and save policy | **Checked** against the continuity transaction: step order, single playable-body location and the population boundary agree. No defect. |
+
| Equipment and acquisition | Equipment Catalogue `3b641972db85…`; Equipment Acquisition and Rig Growth `6ab4a94cda55…` | Coverage: align accepted 32/33 source and control hosts; an unplaced repair/adapter template is not a usable route | **Checked** (added in this revision). Acquisition26 names three source fixtures — R-3 quarantine emitter, cable-junction sterilisation exchanger, one transfer-site Cycler — and Room32 places all three at R13 (Arc), R15 (Thermal Lens/exchanger) and R23 (Cycler), with R02 Fork, R05/R07 Stride, R20 Dynamo, R26/R27 Nozzle and R28 Capacitor likewise placed. No source is an unplaced template, and both sides say so. No defect. |
+
| Combat and contested work | Combat Rules `af22ead1ab5b…`; Combat and Enemy Roster `bb15ab8dce45…` | Combat-state contract and roster | **Checked.** Four records in the roster — **R3**, **R6**, **R8**, **R10** below. Combat Rules itself is clean. |
+
| Enemies, encounters and traps | Encounter and Mechanism Placement Inventory `4b40819edce9…`; Traps and Encounter Progression `a280131b20e4…` | Ten encounters including two setpieces, thirteen mechanisms | **Checked.** The living-return rule agrees with the continuity candidate. Two records: Encounter33 lists alive-return population behaviour as open in its own later paragraph although it states the accepted rule earlier (**R7**), and Traps carries a dated twelve-instance authoring line (**R11**). |
+
| Two alien languages and discovery | Two Language Discovery Map `df0f48f5bd39…` | Four chains with physical evidence | **Checked** against Room32 and the crosswalk: the two-pair hypothesis and corrective third pair agree in substance, with Room32 and the crosswalk supplying the room ID R23 that Language29 states without one. One dated ledger clause (**R6b**). |
+
| Story, endings and corruption | Story and Ending Map `03c9cb8ee955…` | Four mystery chains and the layered ending map | **Checked** against Regional25: objective 12 is independent of objective 10, rescue, treatment and any ending on both sides, and stabilisation stays conditional. Two dated forward-looking rows remain (**R5**). |
+
| Authored cast and short rescue | Cast and Short Rescue Map `61ff0b968eba…` | Five people, fifteen scenes, seven host variants | **Checked.** Cast31 is the accepted side and is clean: vocabulary, Sent predicate and the one-junction geometry all agree with the continuity candidate. The records sit in the two older rescue articles it corrects — **R1**, **R2**, **R12**. |
+
| Colony and home projects | Home and Colony Loop `08f8dde6bc33…` | Coverage: main fixture/control cues and participant/commissioning interfaces using Home28 and Cast31 | **Checked** (added in this revision). Home28's four project states — unavailable, setup incomplete, commissioned, person not participating now — appear verbatim in Information34's home-project row; Cast31 allocates all five projects across Y2, A2, D2, M2 and I2; participant readiness agrees on all three sides that the person signals and nothing begins on their behalf. No defect. |
+
| Information, controls and accessibility | Player Information and Options `9ca194c21bb7…`; Player Information `bf126be1ebe0…` | Cue/action/refusal inventory and options | **Checked.** One clarification — **R9** below; the article already carries a current-room row, so no new state is proposed. |
+
| Save, identity and content authoring | Save and Content State `c4cf4abd17b9…` | Identity, commit boundaries and save policy | **Checked.** The transaction agrees with the continuity candidate — step order, single playable-body location and the population boundary. Two open-list clauses still name alive-return population behaviour as unresolved (**R4**). |
| Content scope and production feasibility | Production Scope `68db46eaeb43…` | Reconciled count/depth/reuse ledger | **Linked.** Cites 24/40 and 10 encounters / 13 mechanisms consistently. No defect found. |
| Development and validation handoff | Development and Validation Handoff `599459013d40…` | Revision-specific development packet | **Linked.** Not re-reviewed; scope/handoff 37 was closed separately. |
## 2. The traced path
-
**The selected opening, through both legal rig choices.** Objective 1 runs R01 → R02 → R03; the fasteners are at R03 and the loose Fork at R02. Both choices are legal and neither is an upgrade. *Deployed:* the board's own source supplies power and the Fork passes one board pulse to both compatible outputs, holding the rack and the patient-bay shutter together; the part leaves carried property and does not return on death. *Packed:* the selector must hold rack power throughout, so that enemy lane stays open, and the Fork comes home. Checked on both sides against Mechanical35 and Survival: the manifest arithmetic agrees — four starters at 1 C each plus one 2 C canister is 6 of 10, and the freed bridge at 2 C fits the retrieval-ready packing but not the air-heavy one without dropping something.
+
**The selected opening, through both legal rig choices.** Objective 1 runs R01 → R02 → R03; the fasteners are at R03 and the loose Fork at R02. Both choices are legal and neither is an upgrade. *Deployed:* the board's own source supplies power and the Fork passes one board pulse to both compatible outputs, holding the rack and the patient-bay shutter together; the part leaves carried property and does not return on death. *Packed:* the selector must hold rack power throughout, so that enemy lane stays open, and the Fork comes home. **Corrected in this revision.** An earlier version said the freed bridge fits retrieval-ready but not air-heavy without dropping something. That inverted the actual constraint, and it was stated as a two-sided check, which makes it worse rather than better. Survival L54 and Mechanical35 L192 agree: retrieval-ready is 6 of 10, and 6 + Fork 1 + bridge 2 = 9 with one unit spare; air-heavy is 8 of 10, and 8 + bridge 2 = **10 exactly, so the bridge fits** while the Fork stays deployed. What cannot also be carried in that branch is the **Fork** — 8 + 1 + 2 = 11 — unless a canister or another object is deliberately left behind, and nothing is silently discarded. The Fork-in-rig branch also has its own control cost under Mechanical35: Manual Trigger moves to inactive cargo, so sensor-timed barrier behaviour replaces manual barrier timing.
**Oxygen, world work and the journal.** Capture, rig edits, oxygen coupling and staged work all run in world time. Opening the journal freezes enemies, oxygen, projectiles, alerts, readiness, mechanisms, warnings and work progress and completes none of them. Checked across four owning articles; no article grants the journal a world action, and none omits a freeze another asserts.
@@ 44,23 46,51 @@
**Late station connection and ending dependency.** Objective 12 is physical completion under a joining rule that is not yet selected; it does not depend on objective 10, rescue, treatment or any ending, and completing it neither triggers nor blocks a departure. Checked in Regional25, Connecting the Station and Story30, which agree, and all three keep stabilisation conditional.
-
## 3. Defects
+
## 3. Reconciled repair register
+
+
Eighteen passages in eleven articles, reconciled from this assessment, the Systems 552 audit and the 559 critique. **Records are sorted by kind, not counted as a score**; a longer list is not a worse result, and none is blocking. Every one is a single cell or clause with wording available. Nothing below is repaired here.
-
Four, none of them a missing first-pass obligation.
+
### A. Game-rule discrepancies — a current claim contradicts an accepted rule
| ID | Location | Present claim | Counter-source | Player impact | Smallest repair |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-
| **D1** | Combat and Enemy Roster `bb15ab8dce45…`, placement-allocation paragraph | "It provisionally allocates **ten of the twelve** SMALL placed-mechanism slots" | Encounter33 `4b40819edce9…` and Production Scope both carry **thirteen** major mechanisms; Design Coverage's finish map states thirteen | None directly; a stale denominator can propagate into scope arithmetic and mislead a later allocation | Replace "ten of the twelve" with "ten of the thirteen", or "ten placed-mechanism slots against the accepted thirteen". Owner: Combat and Enemy Roster. *(Same item routed to the 552 audit; found here independently.)* |
-
| **D2** | Rescue and Home `a7f1e300f1e6…`, transfer-outcome paragraph | "Interruption during transfer sends him to that segment's designated abort refuge, still unsent" — unconditional, and ambiguous as to whether it covers astronaut death | Rescue Rules, Cast31 and First Survivor all now mark the death case conditional on a safeguard **pending owner reaction**, with aboard knowledge unconfirmed | A reader could take a pending owner branch for a settled rule, and could read the outcome as known to the astronaut | After "still unsent", add: *"This describes an ordinary living abort. If the astronaut dies mid-transfer, the outcome follows the conditional candidate in Death Shift and Rescue Continuity and is not confirmed aboard."* Owner: Rescue and Home. |
-
| **D3** | Rescue Shift Proposal `fc5c68818b48…`, status line and dependency table | Presents itself present-tense as resolving the rescue/shift boundary, and describes Rescue Rules as promising a refuge outcome while marking ordering unresolved, and Player Information as needing a defined physical outcome | Both descriptions were true before the 514 alignment and are now stale: Rescue Rules marks the Dorn row a local intention with the conditional added, and Player Information states the reason for its limit | A live-looking rival to an accepted candidate, resting on two out-of-date characterisations | Add to the status line: *"Superseded as a live proposal by the accepted conditional candidate in Death Shift and Rescue Continuity; retained as historical comparison. Its dependency table describes parent revisions predating the 514 alignment."* Owner: Rescue Shift Proposal. |
-
| **D4** | Player Information and Options `9ca194c21bb7…`, place-and-evidence rows | No row states what is beyond the airlock after a death | First Expedition Options and Player Information both carry the fixed-R01 reveal; the accepted candidate makes it a global rule | Low. It is an omission, not a contradiction — but the current interface contract is silent on an accepted rule its own predecessor states | Add one row: *"After a shift, first view | R01 Dock Mouth, unchanged, then the changed free frontier beyond it | Named room and the entrances actually seen | Walk out and look. The airlock never acquires a different direct neighbour."* Owner: Player Information and Options. |
+
| **R1** *(PM-found; the most consequential record)* | Rescue and Home `a7f1e300f1e6…` L44 **and** Rescue Rules `a8e15548bf54…` L26–30 | Both describe the rescue as a "finite sequence of prepared refuges", with an intermediate shipward vestibule and a separate final one | Cast31 `61ff0b968eba…` L7 allows "at most one exposed junction, one airlock-side abort vestibule and the refuge door"; L45 has both D1 routes "converge on the same present abort vestibule, **not a refuge chain**"; L75 names D1 "the short correction of Rescue And Home". The owner's constraint is that rescue not become a long escort | A reader can author or expect a multi-segment chain that the accepted short-crossing contract excludes — the one shape the owner ruled out | Replace the chain sentence in each with the single-vestibule form: *"One current short route — airlock corridor, at most one exposed junction, one stocked airlock-side abort vestibule, the refuge door. Interruption returns the person to that same vestibule; there is no chain of intermediate refuges."* Retain living-abort versus conditional-death, full-attempt air, the armed safeguard and retreat before geometry. Owners: Rescue and Home; Rescue Rules |
+
| **R2** *(mine, D2)* | Rescue and Home `a7f1e300f1e6…`, transfer paragraph | "Interruption during transfer sends him to that segment's designated abort refuge, still unsent" — unconditional, and ambiguous as to whether it covers astronaut death | Rescue Rules L52, Cast31 L11 and First Survivor L13/L37 all make the death case conditional on a safeguard pending owner reaction, with aboard knowledge unconfirmed | A pending owner branch reads as a settled rule, and the outcome reads as known aboard | After "still unsent" add: *"This describes an ordinary living abort. If the astronaut dies mid-transfer, the outcome follows the conditional candidate in Death Shift and Rescue Continuity and is not confirmed aboard."* Owner: Rescue and Home |
+
| **R3** *(mine, D1; also audit 5)* | Combat and Enemy Roster `bb15ab8dce45…` L124 | "It provisionally allocates **ten of the twelve** SMALL placed-mechanism slots" | Encounter33 L19 carries thirteen, of which P11–P13 are the unique objective mechanisms | A stale denominator propagates into scope arithmetic | My original "ten of the thirteen" was arithmetically incomplete — it leaves the following "two slots remain unallocated" summing to twelve. Use the reviewer's form: replace that sentence with *"P11–P13 are the unique objective mechanisms allocated in Encounter33."* Owner: Combat and Enemy Roster |
+
| **R4** *(audit 8)* | Save and Content State `c4cf4abd17b9…` L3 and L85 | Both list "alive-return population behavior" among unresolved decisions | The continuity candidate L67–69, Encounter33 L25 and Save's own L83 state the accepted rule: a living return selects no population | An accepted rule reads as open, inviting a contradictory later choice | Narrow each clause to what is actually open — presentation and exhaustive variants — leaving the rule stated. Owner: Save and Content State |
+
+
### B. Stale preparation and open-list statements — forward-looking work now done
+
+
| ID | Location | Stale statement | Now supplied by | Smallest repair |
+
|---|---|---|---|---|
+
| **R5** *(audit 3)* | Story and Ending Map `03c9cb8ee955…` L144, and L133/L140/L143 | "12 placed mechanisms"; "the future cast map must decide"; "up to 5 of the existing 15 scenes/variants to allocate" | Encounter33's thirteen with P13 the cross-listed core-isolation instance; Cast31's completed five-variant allocation; Room32's placements | Twelve to thirteen naming P13; mark the cast-map rows as allocated by Cast31, keeping exact occurrences later. Owner: Story and Ending Map |
+
| **R6** *(audit 5)* | Combat and Enemy Roster L189 and L191 | "the twelve placed-mechanism inventory"; "the final twelve mechanism placements" | Encounter33 supplies thirteen | Twelve to thirteen with a pointer; geometry and tuning variants stay later work. Owner: Combat and Enemy Roster |
+
| **R6b** *(audit 4)* | Two Language Discovery Map `df0f48f5bd39…` L123 | "The future 40-room/12-mechanism ledger must assign…" | Room32 and Encounter33 supply first-pass placements at thirteen | State the ledger as supplied at thirteen; exact occurrences and strings stay later. Owner: Two Language Discovery Map. *(Language29's other "twelve" uses are objective counts and are correct — not records.)* |
+
| **R7** *(audit 7)* | Encounter and Mechanism Placement Inventory `4b40819edce9…` L232 | Lists "alive-return population behavior" as open | Its own L25 states the accepted rule | Narrow to presentation and exhaustive variants. Owner: Encounter and Mechanism Placement Inventory |
+
| **R8** *(audit 6)* | Combat and Enemy Roster L197 | Lists "alive-return populations" as open | The same accepted rule | As R7. Owner: Combat and Enemy Roster |
+
| **R9** *(mine, D4, in the PM's better form)* | Player Information and Options `9ca194c21bb7…` L79 | The current-room row does not say what the first room after a death is | First Expedition Options L83, Player Information L86 and continuity L41 fix R01 | **Clarify the existing row rather than add a 42nd state** — the article already covers this situation, and the count stays 41. Extend its sees cell: *"After a death the first such room is always R01 Dock Mouth, unchanged; anything new lies at the free frontier beyond it and is seen only by walking there."* The row's existing "Nothing lists an unobserved neighbour" already denies any x-ray through a closed airlock. Owner: Player Information and Options |
+
| **R10** *(PM item 7)* | Combat and Enemy Roster L122 | Phrases populations as unassigned | Encounter33 supplies initial hypotheses | Acknowledge those hypotheses rather than imply none exist. Owner: Combat and Enemy Roster |
+
| **R13** *(audit 1)* | Whole Game Outline `2d6de3c0a45c…` L75 responsibility row | "5 families / 12 placed-instance briefs" | Encounter33's thirteen | The L54 band table may keep its clearly **dated** SMALL-12 definition; make the current thirteen and the P13 increment explicit beside it and in the responsibility row. Owner: Whole Game Outline |
+
+
### C. Dated history — correct when written, needing a date rather than a correction
-
**Two accurate-but-incomplete statements, reported as not defects.** Room32's R13 row and Regional25's objective-4 row each say transfer death "remains unresolved". At the owner-decision level that is still true — the safeguard is pending owner reaction — so neither is a false current claim. Each would read better with a link to the conditional candidate, and neither warrants an edit on its own.
+
| ID | Location | Repair |
+
|---|---|---|
+
| **R11** *(audit 2)* | Traps and Encounter Progression `a280131b20e4…` L92 | Early history absorbed by scope/handoff 37, not a live error. One dating clause: *"Dated pre-33 inventory; the accepted placement is thirteen instances in Encounter33."* Owner: Traps and Encounter Progression |
+
| **R12** *(mine, D3 — label corrected)* | Rescue Shift Proposal `fc5c68818b48…`, status line and dependency table | I called it "superseded"; the reviewer and PM are right that it was never accepted canon. It is an **unadopted dated intake contribution** whose protected-return idea the accepted candidate develops with a counted abort refuge instead of a return to R-3, and its 8 September dependency reads were accurate at their stated time. Status clause: *"An unadopted intake contribution (Design Plan); retained as a dated comparison. Its dependency table reflects 8 September reads predating the 514 alignment."* This selects neither side of owner question 5. Owner: Rescue Shift Proposal |
+
+
### D. No action required
+
+
Coverage `026134c781b6…`, Design Plan and Progress were refreshed at 556/558 and now read 38 tracked / 37 closed / 1 open, so audit 11–13 are closed. Production Scope's 14–26 figure is dated at 549, before 550, and its forward figure is 10–18; that patch is optional. The Handoff's remaining clause naming the closed 37 response as a prerequisite is one clause at the PM's next touch. Room32's R13 row and Regional25's objective-4 row saying transfer death "remains unresolved" are **true at the owner-decision level** and need no edit. The continuity status calling population behaviour a gap is accurate though broad.
+
+
**Count and its basis.** Eighteen passages in eleven articles: 0 blocking, 4 medium (R1 across two articles, R2, R3, R4), 14 low. This differs from the critique's sixteen in ten because R1 — the refuge-chain conflict — is a PM source finding that neither the audit nor my first pass carried, and it spans two articles. No repair depends on an owner answer, and none reopens a closed review.
## 4. Decision register
**Owner-selected requirements** (not reopenable by any article): oxygen-limited exploration with unlimited ship supply; hostile station; revival aboard after death with the cause hidden; survivors forming a colony; at least two alien languages; the full journal pause including enemies and oxygen in combat; mostly automatic ordinary fire with manual specials; connected reusable-part builds; shared carrying capacity; all carried property returning on death with no cache; the station shifting after each death; selected connections persisting with whole-station connection as a deepest late puzzle; the Option A opening; and cooperative rescue staying short.
+
**Owner preferences short of a requirement** (recorded so they are not silently promoted or dropped): equipment loans at home, which the owner kept with an explicit hedge rather than a decision, and practical clue-based exploration, which the owner accepted as a direction with observation and survivor context helping interpretation. The first version of this register omitted both; neither changes a disposition, and neither is a settled rule.
+
**Reversible provisional defaults** (team choices, each with a named alternative): the single-line save policy; families-and-bridges versus simple matching for joining; the protected-retreat safeguard versus the bind-first alternative; found-parts versus fabrication acquisition; the evidence-only corruption rule with voluntary treatment; the ten-unit / four-space opening quantities; and the cue-priority ladder with its reduced-density default.
**The five unanswered owner questions, and what each actually blocks:**
@@ 71,20 101,20 @@
| 2. Yeva or Aster first? | **No** — Cast31 documents both orders with mutually exclusive hosts | No | Yes: one host variant becomes dead content once chosen |
| 3. Working-part discovery versus fabrication? | **No** — the catalogue states behaviour without deciding acquisition | No | Yes: acquisition economy and part sources |
| 4. Apparent credits before departure versus a permanent save ending? | **No** as documentation; **yes** for any claim that v1 has a decided ending | No | Yes: ending content and save policy interact here |
-
| 5. Protected retreat versus injury/loss stakes or bind-first? | **No** — all three are written; the candidate is explicitly conditional | **Partly** — a coherent baseline can be stated conditionally, but a *single* baseline outcome for death-in-transfer cannot | Yes: rescue authoring and encounter geometry |
+
| 5. Protected retreat versus injury/loss stakes or bind-first? | **No** — all three are written; the candidate is explicitly conditional | **No, with conditional wording** — the baseline states the branch as conditional rather than asserting one death-in-transfer outcome | Yes: rescue authoring and encounter geometry |
-
No answer is inferred from silence or from availability messages. Question 5 is the only one with a genuine M2 consequence, and even there both branches are explicit, so it constrains the wording of a baseline rather than preventing one.
+
No answer is inferred from silence or from availability messages. Question 5 is the only one that touches M2 at all, and it constrains the *wording* of the baseline — conditional rather than asserted — rather than blocking one. An earlier version marked it "Partly", which read as a block that the same paragraph then denied.
## 5. Dispositions
**M2 — a coherent conditional baseline: READY.** Every owner-selected requirement has an owning article with a current, non-contradictory rule; the traced path from the opening through death, rediscovery, a language correction, a short rescue and the late connection holds on both sides of every interface I checked. The four defects are local wording and one count; none removes a rule or breaks a path. Where an owner question is open, both branches are written and labelled, which is what a conditional baseline requires.
-
**M3 — a documented first-pass proposal: READY WITH FOUR BOUNDED REPAIRS.** D1–D4 above, each a single-passage edit with its wording supplied. Together they are well under an hour of authoring plus transfer overhead. No domain is missing a first-pass obligation, and no repair depends on an owner answer.
+
**M3 — a documented first-pass proposal: READY WITH BOUNDED REPAIRS.** The register above replaces the earlier "four": eighteen passages in eleven articles, 0 blocking, 4 medium, 14 low, each a single cell or clause with wording supplied. No domain is missing a first-pass obligation, and no repair depends on an owner answer. R1 is the one worth the PM's attention first, because it is the only record where a current page describes a rescue shape the owner's short-crossing constraint excludes.
**What remains after the repairs**, and it is not small: everything explicitly deferred to M4 — full scripts, every string and glyph occurrence, exhaustive state and layout permutations, the admissible-arrangement evidence for all forty rooms, and all implementation. Those are visible, owned and out of M3 scope by prior decision, not gaps discovered here.
-
**Rough effort and calendar recommendation, scope-based.** The four repairs are roughly **1–3 role-hours** including transfers and readback. The reviewer critique and one consolidated response on this assessment are roughly **3–6** more. On that basis the M3 date is **not** work-constrained: the remaining M3 work is a handful of single-passage edits plus this review cycle, so **M3 could be dispositioned as early as 10 September** rather than the 14th, if the PM wants it sooner. M2 needs nothing further from this assessment. I am recommending scope, not changing the forecast — F1.14 dates remain the PM's call.
+
**Rough effort and calendar recommendation, scope-based.** My first estimate of 1–3 role-hours was too low: it counted four records in four articles, and transfers plus guarded readback across eleven stopped articles is the real cost. The reviewer's 3–6 is closer; with R1 added across two more passages I would say **4–7 role-hours** for the repairs, and this response is already spent. That remains inside the 10–18 forward allowance. On scope alone M3 is therefore **not work-constrained**, and a **provisional 10 September** readiness date is my reasoned estimate rather than a forecast change — F1.14 stays PM-owned until disposition. M2 needs nothing further from this assessment, and the two decisions are independent: M2 is core coherence, M3 is whole first-pass readiness, and neither establishes fun, balance, usability, performance or duration.
## 6. What was not checked
-
Six domains were verified by resolved link and internal consistency rather than a two-sided comparison: equipment/acquisition, colony and home, production scope, development handoff, traps, and the older superseded layers as a class. I did not re-review any closed domain's design merit, re-derive counts from first principles, or examine every permitted arrangement. The Systems 552 audit was unavailable at read time and is not incorporated. Nothing here establishes that any of this is discoverable, usable, balanced or enjoyable; those need later owner-authorised implementation and observation, and none has occurred.
+
**Corrected coverage statement.** The matrix now records **thirteen Checked and two Linked** domain rows. An earlier version said nine and six in its prose while the matrix showed eleven and four, and it listed traps as link-only although its row was Checked; "older superseded layers" was also counted as a domain, which it is not — it is a class of article, not one of the fifteen. Equipment/acquisition and colony/home were the two genuinely unchecked obligations named in the critique; both were checked two-sided for this revision and their results are in the matrix. The two that remain **Linked** are production scope and development handoff, both verified by resolved reference and internal consistency only. I did not re-review any closed domain's design merit, re-derive counts from first principles, or examine every permitted arrangement. The Systems 552 audit was unavailable at read time and is not incorporated. Nothing here establishes that any of this is discoverable, usable, balanced or enjoyable; those need later owner-authorised implementation and observation, and none has occurred.
