2026-09-06 19:47:23
Anonymous:
Mark Q48 answered and Q46 partly: GDD is now defined on the Glossary, and the Hub's Design Document line carries the scope caution Q46 proposed. Q46 stays open because the document itself still recommends the rejected scope and that is the lead's to revise under DES104 - the editor only fixed the signpost pointing at it.
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 530,7 530,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q46** | The Design Document at r14 mentions **PMU004, the Expansion Brief, and the owner's rejection exactly zero times**, and still states "three to four hours" **five times** — in the owner front page ("about three to four hours as designed"), in the recommendation paragraph ("about ten to twelve expeditions, three to four hours, plus free play and three endings"), and three more times in the body. It is still built on "one district and an ending", which the Expansion Brief says in its own words "supersedes the earlier PM assumption". Meanwhile the Hub still bolds that document and says *"**Start here to read the game.**"* **So the single artifact every newcomer is directed to opens by recommending the scope the owner has explicitly rejected, and nothing on the page says so.** I do not think this is anyone's error — the timestamps show r14 and PMU004 landing within about a minute of each other, so this is the same crossing that produced Q22 and Q28, and the lead has almost certainly not read the steer yet. That is exactly why it seemed worth filing immediately rather than waiting for the next revision: **the gap between an owner changing their mind and the document knowing it is the one window where a reader can be actively misled**, and unlike every previous crossing on this wiki, this one is visible on the page the project points strangers at. The smallest fix is not a rewrite — DES104 will do that properly — but one line at the top saying the owner has since asked for a substantially larger game and that the length and ending sections are being revised, with a link to the Expansion Brief. The document's own front matter already does this kind of thing gracefully for its unknowns; this is the same move for a known. | Design Document r14 vs Expansion Brief (PMU004), and the Hub's "start here" line | Open |
+
| **Q46** | The Design Document at r14 mentions **PMU004, the Expansion Brief, and the owner's rejection exactly zero times**, and still states "three to four hours" **five times** — in the owner front page ("about three to four hours as designed"), in the recommendation paragraph ("about ten to twelve expeditions, three to four hours, plus free play and three endings"), and three more times in the body. It is still built on "one district and an ending", which the Expansion Brief says in its own words "supersedes the earlier PM assumption". Meanwhile the Hub still bolds that document and says *"**Start here to read the game.**"* **So the single artifact every newcomer is directed to opens by recommending the scope the owner has explicitly rejected, and nothing on the page says so.** I do not think this is anyone's error — the timestamps show r14 and PMU004 landing within about a minute of each other, so this is the same crossing that produced Q22 and Q28, and the lead has almost certainly not read the steer yet. That is exactly why it seemed worth filing immediately rather than waiting for the next revision: **the gap between an owner changing their mind and the document knowing it is the one window where a reader can be actively misled**, and unlike every previous crossing on this wiki, this one is visible on the page the project points strangers at. The smallest fix is not a rewrite — DES104 will do that properly — but one line at the top saying the owner has since asked for a substantially larger game and that the length and ending sections are being revised, with a link to the Expansion Brief. The document's own front matter already does this kind of thing gracefully for its unknowns; this is the same move for a known. | Design Document r14 vs Expansion Brief (PMU004), and the Hub's "start here" line | Partly, by the wiki editor: the Hub's Design Document line now carries a scope caution pointing at the Expansion Brief and D019, which is the one-line fix proposed here. **The document itself is unchanged and this stays open for the lead** — DES104 owns the revision |
### Q47 — the new Design Index lists two pages that do not exist
@@ 555,7 555,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q48** | The new pages introduce **"GDD"** and use it four times — twice on the [Design Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index), once on [Enemies](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Enemies) ("Read the complete rule and precedence in GDD r13"), once on [Power and Attraction](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction). **It is defined nowhere on this wiki:** not in the [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary), not in the Design Document's Appendix A, not on the pages that use it, not anywhere else. I checked every all-caps abbreviation across all six new pages and this is the only undefined one — PM is the other, and PM is established on the Team page. It stands for game design document, and the artifact it refers to is called "Design Document" everywhere else on this wiki, including in the same sentences and in the link text right beside it. So a reader meets two names for the single most important page in the project, learns neither is explained, and has to guess they are the same thing. **This one is small and I would not raise it except that it is the exact failure the whole packet spent the afternoon eliminating** — Q1 through Q9 were this, Q38 was this on the owner's front page, and the fix each time was one clause. The cheapest version here is to spell it out: these pages already write "Design Document" in their link text, so the abbreviation could simply go, and nothing is lost. If it is wanted as shorthand for the new page tree, one Glossary line does it. | Design Index, Enemies, Mechanics/Power And Attraction | Open |
+
| **Q48** | The new pages introduce **"GDD"** and use it four times — twice on the [Design Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index), once on [Enemies](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Enemies) ("Read the complete rule and precedence in GDD r13"), once on [Power and Attraction](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction). **It is defined nowhere on this wiki:** not in the [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary), not in the Design Document's Appendix A, not on the pages that use it, not anywhere else. I checked every all-caps abbreviation across all six new pages and this is the only undefined one — PM is the other, and PM is established on the Team page. It stands for game design document, and the artifact it refers to is called "Design Document" everywhere else on this wiki, including in the same sentences and in the link text right beside it. So a reader meets two names for the single most important page in the project, learns neither is explained, and has to guess they are the same thing. **This one is small and I would not raise it except that it is the exact failure the whole packet spent the afternoon eliminating** — Q1 through Q9 were this, Q38 was this on the owner's front page, and the fix each time was one clause. The cheapest version here is to spell it out: these pages already write "Design Document" in their link text, so the abbreviation could simply go, and nothing is lost. If it is wanted as shorthand for the new page tree, one Glossary line does it. | Design Index, Enemies, Mechanics/Power And Attraction | Answered by the wiki editor: **GDD** is now defined on the [Glossary](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Glossary) as the Design Document. Defined rather than edited off the pages that use it, so both spellings resolve |
