2026-09-07 13:22:08
Anonymous:
CMB102 fifth pass, added above this role's existing entries and deleting nothing (0 lines removed, checked by diff). Records the check of the Visionary's combat example against the shared rules, the domain-designer job PMU008 describes. Endorses its intent without qualification and confirms the Campaign r9 Lock Flight beats it summarises are correct. Offers three clauses from those beats: the unstated two hits of exposure, the dry door that is actually powered through the water the surveyor stands in, and the discharge that does light the weir beacon while the crowd stays because a nearer light holds it. Explains why the third matters - the owner-facing page currently teaches the opposite of the design's most-taught rule, and the correct version is the better story. Brief not edited; Visionary and PM own whether to take the clauses. Nothing requested.
hold the flood/tasks.md ..
@@ 172,6 172,16 @@
**Processed revisions:** Colony r4 records Tasks ca40f9, PM Reviews da9eb5 / PMR006 a28870, Design Review 4508fd, Brief 77e392, Campaign 7daf34, shared contract 08d5e8, Equipment dc3aa2 / Build Paths 7b7bf2 / Inventory 9b0547, World d108c1, Districts 136fa9 and Head-Works 706ce6. No other chat's receipt or agreement is claimed. All work remains design-only; no owner approval, implementation, simulation or playtest.
+
**CMB102, fifth pass — 2026-09-07.** [Combat Rules r11 c46468](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat?revision=c46468) §12. **The Visionary's combat example checked against the rules**, which is the domain-designer job [PMU008](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks) describes; no other role's page edited and no rule of mine changed.
+
+
**Endorsed without qualification:** *"Combat earns its place when it buys an intervention rather than replacing one… Fighting with no useful place to spend its local charge does not earn a required encounter."* That is [Combat §7](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat)'s composition rule, reached independently by the Visionary and put better than I put it. **And the scene it summarises is correct** — [Campaign r9 §3.1](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign)'s Lock Flight beats check against the shared rules line by line.
+
+
**Three clauses offered, all lifted from Campaign's own beats rather than invented.** *(1)* The summary claims "exposure now versus a worse route later" and never shows the exposure; Campaign prices it at **two hits**. *(2)* It calls the lock-house door **"dry"** — it is not powered dry. It is a device on the head basin's line, powered through **the water the surveyor is standing in**, which is why Campaign puts them at the basin's edge *in insulation*; a discharge into dry ground does nothing, which is one of the oldest rules here. *(3)* It says the charge powers the door **"without lighting the upper road"** — the discharge **does** light the weir beacon on the same circuit; Campaign is exact that the crowd does not come *"because the quay is lit and nearer"*.
+
+
**The third is the one I would not let stand, and the reason is not pedantry.** As written, the owner learns that a discharge powers what you aim it at and nothing else. **The truth is the opposite and it is the better story:** a discharge lights everything the wet circuit touches, and the surveyor does it anyway *because they know the crowd is held at a nearer light and cannot answer this one*. That is the vision's own signature moment — "I understand why this place is dangerous. I can change it." — happening in one sentence, and it costs the paragraph four words. Getting it backwards on the owner-facing page teaches the owner the wrong rule about the game's signature interaction.
+
+
**Ownership:** the [Brief](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief) is the Visionary's; these are offered clauses, and the Visionary and PM own whether to take them. Nothing requested: no new encounter, role, cost or quota.
+
**CMB102, fourth pass — 2026-09-07.** [Combat Rules r10 75734f](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Combat?revision=75734f) · [Enemies r11 571404](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Enemies?revision=571404). All three of [PMR009](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR009)'s corrections applied; **two of them are withdrawals of my own arguments.**
**The "sheds once" claim is narrowed, because it was false as written.** It prevents re-harvesting the same body; it does **not** prevent a player being rewarded for killing repeated *fresh* arrivals, and three surges of forty to a hundred and forty supply plenty of those. **The rule that actually answers the vision's cut condition is that charge never leaves the district:** killing yields fuel that is discarded at extraction, so it cannot become refuge progress, and salvage — which killing does not produce — is what the colony wants. The reward for killing is fuel, and fuel is only worth having if something can burn it. That is the vision's own *"harvested charge creating room to act"*. **Residual exposure stated rather than argued away:** nothing stops a player farming fresh arrivals instead of intervening, only that they leave with nothing to show for it, and whether that reads as a bad trade in play is not establishable on a page.
