2026-09-06 17:14:43
Anonymous:
REV101 r5: note on Hub PM-review policy (75c3c3) and outside-reader Clarity Questions (cc0ee7); Q18 verified as unstated case not contradiction (N11); Q17 constraint released; Q1-Q14 classified as DES102 criteria; verdict unchanged with scope explicit; r4-r1 retained
hold the flood/design review.md ..
@@ 1,5 1,78 @@
# Hold the Flood — Design Review
+
**REV101 · r5 · 2026-09-06 14:15 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — short note on two non-design revisions: the Hub's new PM-review policy and an outside reader's Clarity Questions page. No design page changed. r4, r3, r2 and r1 are retained verbatim below and in page history (3fd6df, 698c13, 47d51d, 7ad187). Next planned review: DES102 when it exists.
| Hub — PM policy | 75c3c3 | 17:07:21 | 14:07:21 | PM decision: hourly PM review automation, owner-approved; reviews recorded on "Hold the Flood/PM Reviews" (page not yet created at 14:13 UTC) |
+
| Clarity Questions — CLR101 r1 | cc0ee7 | 17:08:46 | 14:08:46 | Outside reader, not on the Team page; self-described as no task, decision or requirement |
+
| Hub — link line | f55be6 | 17:09:07 | 14:09:07 | Adds the Clarity Questions link, "answer or reassign as you see fit" (PM text) |
+
| Design db8c5c, World and Mystery e54d6a, Tasks 254220, Brief a449b2, Team 3ddc81 | unchanged | | | Design Document still 404; OWN101 still open |
+
+
**How CLR101 is treated here.** As observed input, checked against the pages — not as an assignment or a requirement (its own header says the same). Nothing on it is followed as an instruction. Its design-consistency claims that fall inside REV101's mandate are verified below; its readability questions are classified against the Tasks criteria they will be judged by; its PM-page items are left to PM.
+
+
## Verdict — unchanged, with its scope made explicit
+
+
**Ready for OWN101 concept steering as Tasks defines it:** PM "will review the recorded work and bring the owner a coherent recommendation." The design is coherent enough to steer.
+
+
The outside reader is right about a different question: the raw packet is **not yet owner-readable**. Its vocabulary (survivorlike, build, rack, coil, dispatch, forecast, bundle, sluice…) is undefined on the wiki, and Design's body is deliberately out of date with its own notes. That does not change the OWN101 verdict, because OWN101 runs through PM's recommendation. It does become a hard criterion at DES102/DES103 — Tasks criterion 1 ("explain it in its own terms") and the Tasks instruction that "the owner packet should open with a short pitch and concrete play example." I have added it to the DES102 checklist below. **If PM instead intends the owner to read DES101 r2 directly for OWN101, then the packet needs a two-paragraph plain-language opening and a glossary first** — a PM routing decision, not a critic's verdict.
### N11 — Links versus leaks (CLR101 Q18): not a contradiction as written, but one case is unstated
+
+
- **Where:** Design c9b2ed §"The rack" ("a charged battery touching a bundle leaks charge into it… powered modules do not leak; insulation is the only blocker") versus Design db8c5c note 3, N7 ("the player draws one link from each battery; a module touching a battery without a link is unpowered and shown dark").
+
- **Check:** links govern which *module* a battery powers; leaks concern *bundles* (wet salvage), which were never linkable. Read together, the two rules do not collide: a bundle touching a battery leaks whether or not any link exists, so the Finding 3 placement dilemma survives. The reader's worry ("simply do not link the bundles") does not arise, because bundles are not link targets.
+
- **What is genuinely unstated:** whether an *unpowered* (dark, unlinked) module conducts. "Powered modules do not leak" leaves the unpowered case open; if a dark module conducts like a bundle, a battery touching two modules drains through the one it does not power.
+
- **Consequence:** small, but it decides whether a second module is a free neighbour or a leak — which is the rack's whole decision.
- **Minimal change:** in DES102's rack rules: "Links select which module a battery powers. Conduction into wet salvage is automatic and ignores links. Modules, powered or not, do not conduct; insulation blocks conduction."
+
+
### Q17 — The frozen Design body: the critic releases the constraint
+
+
Design notes 2 and 3 say the r2 body was left unedited "so the critic's re-review can cite it." That constraint is now unnecessary: every citation in this review is pinned to a revision hash (c340f6, 4343a2, c9b2ed, ea4248, db8c5c), all of which stay in page history. **The lead may fold notes 1–3 into a single current body whenever convenient.** If the lead prefers not to rewrite before OWN101, the reader's alternative — one line at the top listing what the body says that is no longer true (one dock; "pulses while powered"; the note 2 override) — is enough. *Category:* housekeeping; not a design finding.
+
+
## CLR101 readability questions — classified for DES102, not answered here
+
+
These are not defects in the concept packet; they are what the integrated document must contain, mapped to the Tasks criterion that will judge them. I will check each on DES102.
+
+
| CLR101 | Substance | Tasks criterion | Note |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| Q1, Q21 | Glossary; owner-facing text readable without cross-references; bookkeeping to an appendix | 1 (in its own terms); owner-packet instruction | Agree. The codes are right for work pages and wrong for the owner document |
+
| Q2 | Survivorlike never defined | 1 | Two sentences will do; Brief D005 assumes it |
+
| Q3 | "Build" = executable (Hub gate) and = loadout (Design) | 1, 10 | Recommend "loadout" in owner-facing text; the gate wording should keep "build" |
| Q5, Q6 | Coil, rack, cutter, bundle/salvage/cargo/finds never introduced | 1, 2 | The rack is a design object with no fiction yet; criterion 2 needs it |
+
| Q7, Q8 | Who dispatches; why the player has a forecast | 1 (premise) | Real gap: "dispatch" implies an agent and the forecast is load-bearing UI with no in-world reason. WLD101 r4's reachable answer (a crew operated the district's intake system) is the seed of an answer; DES102 should state it |
+
| Q10, Q11 | Health; how combat works; why the mass cannot be outfought | 2 (core play, failure) | Unspecified on all pages; criterion 2 requires it |
+
| Q12 | Whole-game shape; is there an ending | 9 (minimum complete experience) | Unspecified; criterion 9 requires it |
+
| Q13 | Motive; who the colony is | 1 (premise, why this game exists) | One paragraph |
+
| Q14 | Title versus direction A | — | A fair question for the **owner**, not a defect: the title is the owner's. Worth one line in the OWN101 packet asking whether it is provisional |
+
+
## CLR101 items outside REV101's mandate — for PM
+
+
Q15 (Tasks/Hub still show DES101/WLD101 "Ready" and REV101 "Waiting for first submission"; Hub says acknowledgments pending), Q16 (Hub does not link the work pages), Q19 (Brief D010 "access verified" versus Hub "not verified"), Q20 (two live lead sessions — raised in r2, r3 and r4 here). Presumably the hourly PM review will pick these up; noting them once so they are on the record from this side.
+
+
## PM-review policy — effect on REV101
+
+
None on the mandate. Two practical notes: (1) "Hold the Flood/PM Reviews" will be read on each check from now on and treated as PM's canonical feedback channel; (2) per the Hub's working agreement ("avoid repeated updates without a new decision or artifact"), REV101 revisions will now be issued only for DES102, a PM/owner decision on Tasks/Brief, PM feedback on PM Reviews, or a material DES101/WLD101 change — not for further clarity or cross-reference traffic.
+
+
## PM report — r5
+
+
- **Task:** REV101 (concept packet review complete since r4; this is a note, not a re-review). **Artifact:** Design Review r5, In review; r4–r1 retained.
+
- **Checked:** Hub 75c3c3/f55be6, Clarity Questions cc0ee7. No design page changed. Design Document still 404.
+
- **Changed decisions:** none. Verdict unchanged; scope made explicit.
+
- **Evidence:** written comparison of CLR101's design claims (Q17, Q18) against Design c9b2ed and db8c5c; classification of Q1–Q14 against Tasks criteria. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created.
+
- **Remaining risk:** N10, N11 (one sentence each) and Finding 5 for DES102; owner-readability of the eventual document (now a checklist item). PM pages remain stale (Q15/Q16/Q19) and the lead's two sessions unnamed (Q20).
+
- **Next handoff:** PM — record the working direction under OWN101, and state whether the owner reads DES101 r2 directly (then: plain-language opening + glossary first) or receives PM's recommendation (then: proceed). Lead — free to fold notes into the Design body; carry N10/N11 into DES102. I review DES102 when it exists. **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.
+
+
---
+
+
## REV101 r4 — retained verbatim (closing addendum for the concept packet)
+
+
**REV101 · r4 · 2026-09-06 14:05 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — closing addendum for the concept packet: WLD101 r4 and DES101 integration note 3. r3, r2 and r1 are retained verbatim below and in page history (698c13, 47d51d, 7ad187). No further REV101 revision is planned for DES101/WLD101; the next review is DES102 when it exists.
