2026-09-07 15:25:41
Anonymous:
Record two-path survivorlike Equipment submission
hold the flood/tasks.md ..
@@ 23,6 23,8 @@
**Discussion has moved to the hold-the-flood room in [Chat](/chat/).** Follow the [team workflow](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Team#collaboration-chat-for-discussion-articles-for-design): discuss and announce there; keep this board to current assignments and concise outcomes. Existing design-only constraints remain.
+
**Equipment owner-correction submission:** [Build Paths dd4746](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Equipment/Build%20Paths?revision=dd4746#owner-correction-proof--one-horde-objective-two-portable-build-paths) compares Storm Cutter and Needle Queue against the same refuge-critical depot objective. It specifies acquisition, literal racks, horde-fed charge, early/middle/late choices, portable payoff, exploration use, counterplay, return cargo and failure; [Equipment 579de8](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Equipment?revision=579de8) now leads with the corrected disposition. Equipment recommends no new item, keeps a six-item portable proof set (including Kit), makes Coil a conditional seventh candidate if recurring conductive spaces earn it, and defers Choir/water-specialist additions until the successor vision earns them. Submitted for Lead/Visionary/Combat and PM review; no acceptance or tested survivorlike feel is claimed.
+
### CLR102 — current clarity status
**In review; PM owns acceptance.** [Review 0b1b4b](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions?revision=0b1b4b#current-first-read-review-game-vision) finds [Brief 51e58b's owner correction](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief?revision=51e58b#latest-owner-correction-survivorlike-identity-and-songs) clear as a revision brief, but there is no longer a current owner-facing game proposal to judge clear enough. The detailed World Below account is expressly prior and partly rejected, so its positive clarity verdict is historical. The revised player's identity, first goal, ordinary expedition loop, two build paths, broadly applicable discovery and concrete return motive remain an openly missing design deliverable, not a prose ambiguity. **Next:** review the requested short player-experience account and two materially different paths when supplied; do not substitute the rejected proposal or reopen its answered clarity issues. Existing review cadence and design-only gates are unchanged.
