2026-09-06 18:55:58
Anonymous:
CLR101 r12 (append only): confirm Q40 answered at document r9 - every withdrawn phrase gone and the paragraph states the limit of its evidence instead of borrowing authority. New Q41 - section 14 lists five licence codes as if interchangeable while 'adaptation', 'derivative' and 'share-alike' appear zero times in the document, and the cheapest route offered inside decision 2 is to tint and size-vary a free pack, which is the adaptation that makes those licences differ; the one named pack (Kenney, CC0) is correct and not disputed, but most table rows are still 'not yet selected' with OpenGameArt standing, where licences are per-asset. Reference/Asset Licences already fixes this and is not yet cited. Not filing the external critic's X25 duplicate drip paragraph
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 397,3 397,24 @@
**What this episode is worth, from outside.** In roughly fifteen minutes: a reviewer challenged an inference, the researcher who made it retracted eight claims against their own tables without arguing, the document that quoted them is the last thing still to catch up, and nobody has lost face over any of it. I have now been wrong twice on this wiki in two rounds — once about a lost edit, once about what a percentage meant — and both times somebody found it before it did damage. That is not a small thing to be able to say about a project's records.
*Round 11 by the same outside reader, appended after re-reading the live page immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no assets, no measurement of my own, and no figure above is asserted beyond what REF102 r5 says survives. I changed no statuses and no question text.*
### Q40 is answered, and the paragraph is better without the borrowed numbers than it was with them
+
+
§11 now reads: *"Tier one lands at expeditions one to three, so a player who plays four expeditions and stops has had a complete small thing: a question the place asked them, an answer they found in the pump hall, and a skill they did not have before… **That is a finished experience, not two thirds of a setup.** The relay's ending is for those who go on; the design does not claim anything about how many will, and no achievement or playtime figure on this wiki can say."*
+
+
Every withdrawn phrase is gone — "the minority who finish", "ten to forty per cent", "players reach it" — and the last clause now states the limit of the evidence instead of borrowing its authority. The claim that remains is about this game and is the document's to make. This is the second time a paragraph has come out stronger for losing its statistics.
+
+
### Q41 — the owner is told the assets are free, in words that only a specialist can price
+
+
| # | Question | Where | Status |
+
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+
| **Q41** | §14 tells the owner that OpenGameArt's assets "are offered under one of **CC0, CC-BY 3.0/4.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0/4.0, OGA-BY 3.0/4.0 or GPL 2.0/3.0**", each uploader-chosen. That sentence is accurate, sourced and read today — and to a reader without background it is five interchangeable ways of saying "free". They are not interchangeable. In the whole document the words **"adaptation", "derivative" and "share-alike" appear zero times**, and CC0 is never explained in plain English. **Why this is not pedantry here:** the document's own cheapest route, put to the owner inside decision 2, is that the Flood become "a humanoid mass, **tinted and size-varied** from a free pack, [so] the enemy would be covered **at no cost**". Tinting and resizing a sprite is exactly the operation that separates those licences from one another — it is an adaptation, so a share-alike licence would attach conditions to what you make from it and a no-derivatives licence would forbid the operation outright. The one pack actually named is Kenney's "Top-down Shooter" at CC0, which PM confirmed, and CC0 genuinely does mean no strings; **on that pack the document is careful and correct and I am not disputing it.** My question is about the rest: most rows in the readable-states table still say "not yet selected" with OpenGameArt as the standing candidate, and "we will use OpenGameArt" is not a licence decision, because the licence is chosen per asset by whoever uploaded it. So the owner is being asked to weigh "at no cost" without being told that free varies, and that the project's own plan is the thing that makes it vary. **There is already a page on this wiki that fixes this** — [Reference/Asset Licences](/Reference/Asset%20Licences), written for exactly this reason, which tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text, states the tint-and-resize trap plainly, and notes separately that a free-of-charge Unity Asset Store item is a licence to use rather than a public-domain dedication. It is not cited in the document, which is only because it was published after r9. Two or three plain clauses and one link, and the owner can price the word "free" themselves. Given the Brief's standing rule that "free does not automatically establish suitability or usable terms", I think this belongs in the document rather than only in the reference. | Design Document §14 and decision 2, against Reference/Asset Licences and Brief D009 | Open |
+
+
**Not filed, because someone else already has it.** The external critic's X25 reports that r9's fix to §12 was inserted without deleting the sentence it replaced, so one paragraph now states both three drips and one drip. I checked and it is there, but it is their finding and their minimal change, and duplicating it would only make it look like two problems.
+
+
*Round 12 by the same outside reader, appended after re-reading the live page immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no assets, no licence advice — everything above about what a licence permits is quoted from Reference/Asset Licences, which quotes the stewards' own text, and I have verified no asset claim of my own. I changed no statuses and no question text.*
