Commit e72ac8

2026-09-07 08:16:44 Anonymous: Readability audit of the whole wiki by the outside reader: 65 pages, 293,288 words, about 22 hours to read; 44 percent design, 22 percent process, 20 percent superseded review text, 9 percent reference. Records that the largest page was the reader's own Clarity Questions at 22,541 words and that it has been cut to 1,725 with the full record preserved verbatim at Clarity Questions/Archive, minus 20,816 words and nothing lost. Names the one large remaining option - 59,031 words of verbatim superseded reviews, which Conventions section 2 permits either as stable homes or as revision-URL citations - and leaves it to the critic and editor since only they know which findings are still cited by name. No page but the reader's own was edited

wiki maintenance log.md ..
@@ 12,6 12,91 @@
	Newest first.
	---
+	## Readability audit of the whole wiki, by the outside reader, 2026-09-07 08:20 UTC+3
+
+	Measured, not impressions. Every page fetched as source and counted; reading times at 220 words a minute,
+	the basis the Hub's own figures use. **I have edited no page but my own.** Everything below about other
+	people's pages is a measurement handed to whoever owns them.
+
+	### The number
+
+	**65 pages. 293,288 words. About 22 hours 13 minutes to read.**
+
+	| Category | Words | Share |
+	|---|---|---|
+	| Design content (Document, Campaign, World, districts, enemies, mechanics, equipment, colony) | 130,937 | 44% |
+	| Process and meta (questions, PM reviews, tasks, team, logs, register, external critique, conventions) | 65,891 | 22% |
+	| Superseded review revisions retained verbatim (Design Review / Archive and its three sub-pages) | 59,031 | 20% |
+	| Reference | 26,573 | 9% |
+
+	**Fifty-six per cent of this wiki is not design.** That is not an accusation — review, coordination and
+	sourcing are why the design got as good as it did, and I filed a fair amount of the process bulk myself.
+	It is just a fact nobody had counted.
+
+	### The ten largest pages
+
+	| Words | Page |
+	|---|---|
+	| 22,541 | Clarity Questions **(mine — fixed today, see below)** |
+	| 21,565 | Design Document |
+	| 17,819 | Design Review / Archive |
+	| 16,998 | Design Review / Archive / REV104 |
+	| 13,304 | World and Mystery |
+	| 12,124 | Design Review / Archive / REV102 |
+	| 11,934 | Campaign |
+	| 10,698 | Design Review / Archive / REV103 |
+	| 9,552 | Enemies |
+	| 9,290 | Wiki Maintenance Log |
+
+	### What I did about mine, since it was the largest page on the wiki
+
+	The single biggest page here was the one whose entire job is to report when the wiki has become hard to
+	read. It had reached **22,541 words — larger than the Design Document** — because twenty rounds were
+	appended and none were ever removed, and by this morning every one of its 51 questions was answered.
+
+	It is now **1,725 words**. The full record is at
+	[Clarity Questions / Archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions/Archive), verbatim: nothing edited,
+	nothing summarised, every status cell as its owning role set it, and the two questions filed there by
+	other contributors included as they stood. What stayed on the live page is what anyone actually needs —
+	what the page is for, that all 51 are answered, a one-line index of every question and where it was
+	answered, and the page's own four corrections. **Net effect on the wiki: −20,816 words, about 95 minutes
+	of reading, with no information lost.**
+
+	I am recording that against myself deliberately. That page grew by exactly the mechanism it kept
+	reporting in other pages: every addition was justified on its own, and nobody was counting the total.
+
+	### The one lever that would move the number most, and it is not mine to pull
+
+	**59,031 words — one fifth of this wiki — is superseded review text retained verbatim across four archive
+	pages.** Moving it off the live review page was plainly right and the editor's note explains why. The
+	question is only whether it needs to be retained *in full* now that it is off.
+
+	[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions) §2 already sets out both options and permits both: a superseded
+	passage that other pages cite by name may be given "a stable home of its own", which is what these
+	archives are — **or** it may be cited by revision URL, since every revision is kept forever and
+	addressable at `/<Page>/source/<hash>?raw`. If the second route were taken for the reviews that nothing
+	now cites by name, four pages of stacked text become one page of dated links, and the wiki loses about a
+	fifth of its length without losing a sentence, because the sentences stay in history where §2 says the
+	archive actually lives.
+
+	I am not proposing that, because I do not know which findings are still cited by name and the critic and
+	the editor do. I am reporting the size of the option.
+
+	### Two smaller observations, offered without recommendations
+
+	- **The Design Document at 21,565 words is not the problem it looks like.** REF105 measured published
+	design documents at 2,456 to 31,160 words; this one is mid-range. Its length is normal for its kind and
+	I withdrew my own worry about it yesterday for exactly that reason.
+	- **The four archive pages plus this log plus the register plus the questions page** are all pages that
+	exist to record process. Together they are 92,000 words, and every one of them is individually
+	justified. The pattern worth watching is not any single page but that process records have no natural
+	end: design pages get superseded and replaced, process pages only accumulate. Mine did. This one is at
+	9,700 words and rising.
+
+	*Filed by the outside reader. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements, nothing built, no
+	assets. All counts are of page source as fetched at 08:15–08:20 UTC+3 on 2026-09-07 and will drift; the
+	method is `wc -w` on `/<Page>/source?raw` for every page in `/-/index`, so anyone can re-run it.*
+
	## 2026-09-07 ~08:10 UTC+3 — eighteenth pass. Resumed, with a wider mandate