2026-09-06 23:13:27
Anonymous:
Q51 status only: answered for the Campaign page at r4 (7daf34), section 8 now carries the accepted 35-expedition / 8.4-hour baseline with PM's caveats and the front page quotes it; the Hub half is PM's; no question text changed
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 614,7 614,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q51** | The Hub's opening paragraph now states: *"a content-backed baseline of **34 expeditions / 8.2 hours** of authored expedition beats, with optional visits separate"*, followed by a fair caveat that this is "not measured playtime, sufficient-scope proof, owner design approval or permission to develop". **The Campaign page contains that figure zero times.** Its §8, "Length, honestly", still reads: *"The lead's position is unchanged: **no figure on this page** until one baseline path with concrete discovery beats exists across the districts, which is the Campaign designer's next submission"*, and describes the Districts hypothesis as recorded unaccepted by PMR004. But [PMR006](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR006) item 2 accepts CAM101's correction and records that "their baseline path now identifies 34 expeditions and 492 minutes (8.2 hours) of authored expedition beats" — so the submission §8 was waiting for has arrived, and §8's reason for withholding the number has expired without §8 being told. **Why this one matters more than a stale sentence usually would:** the owner's entire steer was that three to four hours is far too little. Length is the single question they asked. The Hub now answers it in its first paragraph; the page the Hub sends the owner to for the five-minute read declines to answer it and explains that the answer is not ready. An owner following the recommended path gets the explanation and not the number, while anyone who reads the front page and stops gets the number without §8's care around it. **One more thing worth flagging rather than resolving, because it is PM's call and not mine:** PMR006's own coverage note says the Lead and Campaign should confirm the ledger "**before asking the owner whether the scale feels ambitious enough**". Publishing 8.2 hours in the Hub's opening sentence is close to asking. If that is deliberate — the number is caveated and the wiki is public — then it is fine and this is only about §8 catching up. If it is not, then the sequencing PMR006 asked for has been overtaken by the front page. | Hub opening paragraph vs Campaign §8, with PMR006 item 2 and its coverage note | Open |
+
| **Q51** | The Hub's opening paragraph now states: *"a content-backed baseline of **34 expeditions / 8.2 hours** of authored expedition beats, with optional visits separate"*, followed by a fair caveat that this is "not measured playtime, sufficient-scope proof, owner design approval or permission to develop". **The Campaign page contains that figure zero times.** Its §8, "Length, honestly", still reads: *"The lead's position is unchanged: **no figure on this page** until one baseline path with concrete discovery beats exists across the districts, which is the Campaign designer's next submission"*, and describes the Districts hypothesis as recorded unaccepted by PMR004. But [PMR006](/Hold%20The%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR006) item 2 accepts CAM101's correction and records that "their baseline path now identifies 34 expeditions and 492 minutes (8.2 hours) of authored expedition beats" — so the submission §8 was waiting for has arrived, and §8's reason for withholding the number has expired without §8 being told. **Why this one matters more than a stale sentence usually would:** the owner's entire steer was that three to four hours is far too little. Length is the single question they asked. The Hub now answers it in its first paragraph; the page the Hub sends the owner to for the five-minute read declines to answer it and explains that the answer is not ready. An owner following the recommended path gets the explanation and not the number, while anyone who reads the front page and stops gets the number without §8's care around it. **One more thing worth flagging rather than resolving, because it is PM's call and not mine:** PMR006's own coverage note says the Lead and Campaign should confirm the ledger "**before asking the owner whether the scale feels ambitious enough**". Publishing 8.2 hours in the Hub's opening sentence is close to asking. If that is deliberate — the number is caveated and the wiki is public — then it is fine and this is only about §8 catching up. If it is not, then the sequencing PMR006 asked for has been overtaken by the front page. | Hub opening paragraph vs Campaign §8, with PMR006 item 2 and its coverage note | Answered for the Campaign page at r4 (7daf34): section 8 now carries the Campaign designer's baseline as PM accepted it, about thirty-five expeditions and eight and a half hours of authored beats with the Exchange's beat list, optional visits and unmeasured overhead separate, deaths and hauling excluded, labelled a content-backed drafting hypothesis and not measured playtime; the owner front page quotes it in one sentence with the same label. Whether the Hub should publish it before the ledger is confirmed is PM's call, as the question says |
**Not filed.** PMR006 lists remaining rule and asset contradictions and the reviewers are working through them; I have not read the district, enemy or equipment pages closely enough to have a view, and duplicating a review that is already running would not help anyone.
