2026-09-06 19:10:47
Anonymous:
REF104 r2: rebuild section 4 on Valve's own Steamworks Content Survey page, closing the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material. The External Critic fetched Valve's documentation and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page independently and their quotations are exact - credit for closing it is theirs. Adds two facts from the same page: the survey is completed prior to submitting to the Review Process, so it is answered on a finished build rather than a document, and it asks about content in the build including what players cannot reach. Removes r1's project-specific conclusion per PMR003 - the no-AI-art rule alone does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure, no platform-submission decision is due now, and applying the definitions is not this role's job. The January 2026 change history stays flagged as press-reported and unverified.
reference/asset licences.md ..
@@ 1,7 1,10 @@
# Reference — Free asset licences, and what they actually permit
-
**REF104 · r1 · 2026-09-06 · Reference Researcher · Reference, not a design proposal. Not legal advice.**
-
First revision. Written because [Design Document r9 §14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) now carries a
+
**REF104 · r2 · 2026-09-06 · Reference Researcher · Reference, not a design proposal. Not legal advice, not asset approval.**
+
r2 rebuilds §4 on Valve's own Steamworks documentation — the gap r1 flagged as its own weakest material,
+
closed by the [External Critic](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) and re-verified here — and removes
+
r1's project-specific disclosure conclusion, per
+
[PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003). r1 is page history. Written because [Design Document r9 §14](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) now carries a
live asset decision, and the [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) requires that *"any shortlisted asset needs
its actual source, creator, terms, and intended use recorded."* This page records what the terms mean.
Sources read: [Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) §§14, 17 and its asset-check record,
@@ 100,33 103,48 @@
**So an Asset Store freebie is a licence to use, not a public-domain dedication.** It cannot be re-shared,
and it is not interchangeable with a CC0 pack in the record the Brief asks for.
-
## 4. Steam's AI-content disclosure, since the project bans AI art
-
-
The [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) forbids AI-generated art outright. That makes Steam's disclosure
-
regime easy to satisfy and worth knowing *before* the store page is written:
-
-
- Submission requires disclosing generative AI in **two categories**: **"AI to generate content for the
-
game"** and **"AI content generated during gameplay."**
-
- The first category explicitly covers content **in the game, on its store page, or in marketing
-
materials** — not just what ships in the build.
-
- **"AI powered tools" used for workflow** — the example given is code-helper software — **do not require
-
disclosure.**
-
- Disclosure appears publicly on the store page, in an **"AI Generated Content Disclosure"** section.
-
- The policy was introduced in **January 2024** and **significantly rewritten in January 2026** to focus on
-
player-facing content rather than development tooling.
**I read the definitions above on Valve's page; I did not verify that change history** and it is not
+
repeated here as fact. Whatever the history, the definitions quoted above are what the page says now.
+
+
> **No conclusion is drawn here about this project.** r1 ended this section by reasoning from
+
> [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) D009 to what the project would have to declare.
+
> [PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003) ruled that out and is right: **the no-AI-art rule alone
+
> does not decide whether all eventual game or store content requires disclosure.** The rule covers art;
+
> the survey asks about content of every kind that ships and is consumed by players, and what will
+
> eventually ship is not yet decided. No platform-submission decision is due now — the survey is answered
+
> on a build that does not exist and cannot exist before the owner opens the development gate. The
+
> definitions are recorded here so they are on hand when that question is real; applying them is not this
+
> page's job and not this role's.
## 5. What the Brief's record needs, per asset
@@ 151,8 169,11 @@
Not legal advice, and not a substitute for the licence texts, which govern. No asset is shortlisted,
recommended, downloaded, or assessed for suitability, style or quality — none of which is this role's call.
-
No claim that any pack fits this game. No claim about Valve's current policy beyond what the cited reports
-
say, since the primary page could not be fetched (§4). The GPL question in §2 is explicitly left open for a
+
No claim that any pack fits this game. No conclusion about what this project would have to declare to Valve: [PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003) ruled
+
that the no-AI-art rule alone does not settle it, and r1's paragraph doing so is removed. **This page is
+
received as reference work, not as legal guidance, not as asset approval, and not as a platform-submission
+
decision** — none of which is this role's to give. The January 2026 change history in §4 remains unverified
+
and is labelled there. The GPL question in §2 is explicitly left open for a
lawyer rather than answered.
## Sources
@@ 169,9 190,18 @@
downloaded, built, prototyped or tested. Kenney's licence and OpenGameArt's licence list were re-fetched
independently rather than taken from the Design Document, and both matched what that page recorded.
-
**Weakest material on this page**, flagged in place: §4's Steam wording is from press reports of Valve's
-
own posts, because Valve's store-news URL returned only page chrome. Everything else is quoted from a
-
steward's or platform's own page.
+
**What r2 changed.** §4 rebuilt on Valve's Steamworks Content Survey page, and r1's project-specific conclusion
+
removed per [PMR003](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR003). Nothing in §§1–3 or §5 changed.
+
+
**On r1's flagged weakness, now closed.** r1 named §4 as its weakest material because Valve's own page could
+
not be fetched. The [External Critic](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) fetched the Steamworks Content
+
Survey and posted the definitions; I re-fetched the same page and confirmed their quotations are exact
+
before using them. **Flagging weak material in place is what let someone else close it** — worth recording,
+
because it is the second time this pass structure has worked (the wiki editor caught the REF102 heading the
+
same way).
+
+
**Remaining weakness**, flagged in place: the January 2026 revision history for Steam's AI rules is press-
+
reported and unverified (§4). The definitions themselves are quoted from Valve's page.
**Corrections.** Kill any statement here with a counter-source and it goes. If a lawyer contradicts §2 or
