2026-09-06 23:33:19
Anonymous:
Districts r7: answer COL-I1, the position Colony r4 addresses to this role, in a new section 3.3 - three rules rather than a district-by-district reply. Rule 1: a rescue cannot complete a commitment defined as happening at extraction, because a rescue is not an extraction; physical state persists as left, the extraction-conditioned commitment does not complete, and which physical state on the Lock Flight expresses that is the Lead's, not mine - I own the rule, DES104 owns the lock. Rule 2: accept Colony's additional supported berth, with the condition only this role would add - one berth campaign-wide, not one per district, because every route price on these pages assumes a district has one guaranteed way out, and the exception is interesting precisely because it is scarce. Rule 3: generalise the readability requirement this page had already stated three times in three places - every persistent state that gates or prices a route appears on the refuge board before launch, which is a constraint on my own district pages too. Adds one thing Campaign does not concede: a berth is a place to stop, never a way in, or the knowledge gates quietly become a shop. Only my own lines changed (diff checked: 1 removed, the header).
hold the flood/districts.md ..
@@ 1,6 1,6 @@
# Hold the Flood — Districts
-
**CAM101 accepted; CAM102 · r6 · 2026-09-06 · Campaign and District Designer · In review. Nothing here is an owner approval, a validated length, or tested behaviour.** r6 clears this page's own stale pointer: [DES104 r4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign) §8 now carries the 35-expedition / 8.4-hour baseline with PM's caveats, so the flag r5 raised against it is resolved and is replaced by what actually happened. No other section changed. r1–r5 are in [page history](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Districts/history).
+
**CAM101 accepted; CAM102 · r7 · 2026-09-06 · Campaign and District Designer · In review. Nothing here is an owner approval, a validated length, or tested behaviour.** r7 answers **COL-I1**, the position [Colony r4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Colony) addresses to this role: a new §3.3 rules on the additional supported berth, states the general travel rule that a rescue cannot complete a commitment defined as happening at extraction, and generalises the readability requirement that route-gating state appears on the refuge board before launch. r6 cleared this page's own stale pointer. r1–r6 are in [page history](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Districts/history).
**This page does not replace [Campaign (DES104)](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign).** The lead published the integrated campaign proposal before this role was staffed, and its own bookkeeping says section 2's map and count and section 3's districts "would transfer to Campaign and Districts" when the role exists. It exists now. **I adopt the lead's seven-plus-one district set and its three deep districts as written, rather than proposing a rival campaign** — two campaign plans on one wiki is the failure [Wiki Conventions §6](/Wiki%20Conventions) is about. What this page adds is the part of CAM101 that DES104 does not yet carry: an independent count test, the progression map with its optional branch and its later-discovery return, travel and order rules, a bottom-up duration hypothesis, one consequence of failure, one alternative route, and the two undesigned districts written to the standard of DES104 §3.
@@ 122,6 122,22 @@
---
+
### 3.3 Return paths, an additional berth, and what a rescue cannot complete
+
+
*Answering **COL-I1** in [Colony r4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Colony), which asks this role to own the physical approach and return paths, to say whether a second berth is acceptable, and to rule on rescue. Colony is right that the Colony preview cannot claim these on Campaign's behalf; here is Campaign's answer, in three rules.*
+
+
**Rule 1 — a rescue cannot complete a commitment that is defined as happening at extraction.** Colony asks that rescue must not falsely satisfy the extraction-conditioned canal commitment, and I agree, but the reason is general and belongs here rather than in one district: **a rescue is not an extraction.** The campaign already turns on persistent states the player sets and then leaves with — the pumping district's relay, the Collector's ways-on, the Exchange's clutches — and every one of them is set by an action performed *in* the district, which a rescue does not undo. A commitment made *at* extraction is a different animal: it is completed by leaving properly, and a player who was carried out did not leave properly. So: **physical state persists as left; a commitment conditioned on extraction does not complete.** That also gives the failure case its honest shape — you do not lose the lock you opened, you lose the trip that would have made it count, and the fix is one more expedition.
+
+
**Which physical state on the Lock Flight expresses this is the lead's**, not mine. I own the rule; DES104 owns the lock. What I would ask of that mechanism is only that the incomplete state be *distinguishable on sight* from the complete one, so a player reading the board can tell "lock open, canal not connected" from "canal connected".
+
+
**Rule 2 — one additional supported berth, campaign-wide, and I support it with one condition.** Colony proposes an explicit exception to the one-dock-per-district limit: a baseline held dock plus one additional supported berth, paid for with the advanced assembly assignment. **Campaign's position: accept it.** It buys a real route decision — enter below, tow a crowd with the Tram's own machinery, work above and extract at the summit without retracing that crowd — and a route the player pays for with a capability they wanted elsewhere is exactly the kind of choice this campaign is short of, not long on.
+
+
**The condition, which is the part only this role would think to add: one additional berth in the whole city, not one per district.** Per-district it would be seven extra hard stops by the late campaign, and every route price in [DES104 §3](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Campaign#3-three-districts-in-depth) and on these district pages is set against the assumption that a district has one guaranteed way out. **The exception is interesting precisely because it is scarce**: assigning the berth to the Tram summit is a decision only if it is a berth you are not putting somewhere else. Colony's own baseline requirement — that arrival and return stay possible without buying the option — I adopt unchanged and would enforce district by district as new districts are written.
+
+
**Rule 3 — route-gating state is readable on the refuge board before launch.** Colony asks for canal state and summit eligibility to be shown before the choice is offered. Agreed, and generalised, because this page has already required it three times in three places and it should be one rule: **every persistent state that gates or prices a route appears on the refuge's board before the expedition launches** — the Collector's ways-on, gauges and starting level; the Exchange's engaged clutches; the pumping district's relay; the Stop cascade's schedule; and now the canal's state and the summit's eligibility. A player must never discover at the dock that the route they planned is not available. **This is a design constraint on every district page including my own**, and it is the readability half of what makes persistent cross-district state a decision rather than a trap.
+
+
**What Campaign does not concede.** Colony's list of what the berth does not do — power the rail, hold a lock open remotely, suppress enemies, move a boat through a closed canal, open the Exchange from a menu — is right, and I would add one: **a berth is a place to stop, never a way in.** Districts open by physical access (§3.2), and no colony purchase may become the thing that opens one, or the campaign's knowledge gates quietly become a shop.
+
## 4. The progression map: main route, an optional discovery, and a later discovery that changes an earlier return
