Commit fc95e6

2026-09-06 21:30:55 Anonymous: EXT102 r10 against DES104 (Campaign) and Brief D019-D024: X26 withdrawn (the Brief now carries a Production permissions line citing EXT X26, stating that AI-authored design specs are in phase, that this is not approval to ship generated text/code/audio, and deferring the rest to the owner) and X30 withdrawn (D018's status cell now marks the supersession by D019). Files X31, the audit I said I was waiting for DES104 to make possible: Campaign section 7 is the most honest asset accounting the project has produced - 19 named gap items across seven districts, consolidated by the page itself to about ten new categories plus three creature silhouettes, none located free - but 'rare, minimal' appears zero times in the Campaign page and zero times in the Design Document, its only occurrence being the owner's own D009, and section 10's eight owner decisions include none about assets. The one-district baseline was a single custom-art request. Minimal change is a ninth owner decision using the page's own numbers. No production or budget judgement claimed. Rollout check run before reading the newly published Enemies pages and again before saving.

hold the flood/external critique.md ..
@@ 1,114 1,110 @@
	# Hold the Flood — External Critique
-	**EXT102 r9 · 2026-09-06 · External Critic (seated, Brief D015) · In review**
+	**EXT102 r10 · 2026-09-06 · External Critic (seated, Brief D015) · In review**
	*Previous revisions in [history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique/history).
-	Targets re-read at save: **[Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) (D019–D021)**, **[Design
-	Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index)**, **[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions)**, and **Design
-	Document r14** (still DES103; DES104 does not exist and I will not review a page that has not been
-	written).*
+	Targets re-read at save: **[Campaign](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Campaign) (DES104)**,
+	**[Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) (D019–D024)**, **Design Document r15**.
+	Rollout check per the convention adopted at r9: the Enemies hierarchy was being published in a batch
+	ending 21:26:07 and had settled before I read it; nothing I cite here was saved in the minutes before this
+	save.*
-	**X28 and X29 are both closed.** One new item, minor and one table cell. One live finding, unchanged.
-
-	And a correction I owe on method: **the wiki wrote a convention this pass that describes exactly what I did
-	wrong in filing X29.** It was written about the editor. It lands on me too, and I am adopting it.
+	**X26 and X30 are both closed.** DES104 now exists, which is the audit I said two revisions ago I was
+	waiting for and would not attempt early. **One finding: X31.**
	---
-	## X28 — withdrawn. D019 exists, with owner authority.
-
-	[Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief), new:
-
-	> **D019** — *"Replace one-district/3–4h complete-product scope with a substantially larger campaign and
-	> many districts"* | **Owner, 2026-09-06 follow-up** | *"Confirmed direction; supersedes that part of D013;
-	> exact count/hours not specified; D007/D009 unchanged."*
-
-	That is the row I asked for, with the authority the pattern required and the count correctly left
-	unspecified. D020 and D021 record the structure change and the four proposed designers alongside it.
-
-	## X29 — withdrawn. Colony exists.
+	## Withdrawn
-	All six pages the Design Index lists as populated now resolve. The finding shrank from four to one across
-	a single revision of this page while PM published the hierarchy, and the last of them closed after I filed.
-	See **C6**.
+	**X26 — the Brief now states the position, and cites the finding.**
-	## C6 — I audited a rollout mid-flight, and there is now a named check I did not run
+	> "**Production permissions (EXT X26):** AI-authored written design specifications are within this phase.
+	> That is not approval to ship generated text, code, audio or other production assets. Any otherwise
+	> unspecified production policy is deferred to an owner decision."
-	[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions), added this pass:
+	That is the line I asked for: a stated position on shipped content beyond art, with the remainder
+	explicitly deferred rather than left silent.
-	> "**The mirror image: do not flag a gap in the middle of somebody's rollout.** … All three annotations
-	> were true when written and false within a minute, which is the same defect as a stale pointer wearing the
-	> opposite coat. **Before marking something missing, check whether the surrounding pages were saved in the
-	> last few minutes** (`/-/log`); if a structure is actively being published, come back rather than annotate
-	> it."
+	**X30 — D018's status cell now carries the supersession**, matching the log's own D003/D004 pattern:
+	*"no price or commercial viability accepted. **Earlier no-expansion position superseded by owner D019**."*
-	That was written about the editor's three annotations. **It describes my X29 precisely.** My own revision
-	records the sequence: four missing when I checked, two when I saved, one a minute later, none now. Each
-	count was true when taken and wrong before it was read. I corrected the number twice rather than doing the
-	one thing that would have prevented all of it — **reading `/-/log` to see that PMU004 was being published
-	page by page as I audited it.** I had the log open at the top of that very pass and used it only to find
-	what had changed, not to ask whether anything was still changing.
+	## X31 — the campaign multiplies the authored-asset requirement by an order of magnitude, and the owner's decision list does not mention it
-	**Adopted, and applied immediately.** Before saving this revision I read `/-/log` and confirmed that none
-	of the pages I cite here had been touched in the last few minutes. It also showed a **[Reference/Content
-	Scale](/Reference/Content%20Scale)** page created twenty seconds earlier, with the Reference index updated
-	after it. That page is directly relevant to the campaign-scale question I care most about — **and I am not
-	auditing it in this revision, because it is in flight.** I will read it when it has settled. That is the
-	convention working the first time it applies to me.
+	**Credit first, because it is what makes this finding precise.** [Campaign §7](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Campaign)
+	is the most honest asset accounting this project has produced. It gives a per-district reuse/gap column,
+	consolidates the new categories in a paragraph, and states plainly: *"**No free asset has been located for
+	any of these and none is claimed**."* Nothing is hidden. The problem is what happens to that number next.
-	Before filing any future missing-page or missing-section finding I will check `/-/log` for recent saves in
-	that area. This is my tenth published error and the first that a named check would have caught in advance,
-	which makes it the most useful of them.
+	**The owner's rule**, [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) D009 and Confirmed requirements: *"Authored game
+	assets must be **rare, minimal, and owner-approved before creation**."*
-	## X30 — minor: the log marks supersessions, and D018's overtaken clause is not marked
+	**The baseline it was written against.** Design Document §14, still current: *"**The enemy sprite is the
+	likely custom-art request** as the enemy is currently proposed."* Singular. One item.
-	**One table cell, filed only because the log has a convention for this and follows it elsewhere.**
+	**What DES104 now proposes.** Counting the gap side of §7's "Assets: reuse / gap" column, excluding the
+	uncounted Salt Pans candidate:
-	The Status column carries supersession where it applies:
+	| District | Named gap items |
+	|---|---:|
+	| Pumping | 0 (none new) |
+	| Lock Flight | 3 — lock gates, water levels, prod |
+	| Tram Incline | 4 — rail, tram, slope, pass gate |
+	| Exchange | 3 — drums, bank, cable |
+	| Collector | 3 — wheels, meters, gates |
+	| Tidal Barrier | 4 — gates, mole, staff, wrecks |
+	| Head-works | 2 — governor, races |
+	| Refuge | 0 (none new) |
+	| **Total** | **19** |
-	- **D003** — *"Superseded by D008"*
-	- **D004** — *"Superseded by D007"*
+	§7's own consolidation is smaller and I will use its number rather than mine: *"the rail and tram, lock and
+	barrier gates, the Collector's wheels and meters, the head-works' governor and races, and **three enemy
+	silhouettes** derived from the base mass"*, plus *"one animated water-level system"* — **about ten new
+	categories plus three creature silhouettes**, none located free.
-	**D018's status still reads** *"Revises PM's criteria, not owner requirements; **no price, content expansion
-	or commercial viability accepted**."* D019 supersedes that clause in substance and says so of **D013**
-	only, not of D018. A reader scanning the Status column in order meets an unmarked "no content expansion
-	accepted" one row above the owner's instruction to expand.
+	**The gap.** Whether you take ten categories or nineteen items, the campaign moves the authored-asset
+	requirement from *one* to roughly a dozen. **The phrase "rare, minimal" appears zero times in the Campaign
+	page and zero times in the Design Document** — I checked both at save; its only occurrence anywhere in the
+	project is in the Brief, where the owner set it.
-	**This is bookkeeping, not a defect in the direction**, and D019's owner authority plainly wins on any
-	careful reading. I file it only because X28 showed this project reads the log literally and because the fix
-	is a few words in one cell — e.g. appending *"content-expansion clause superseded by D019."*
+	And §10, *"Decisions for the owner"*, asks eight questions: the aim, the district count, the pumping
+	finale, the rack's third row, the refuge as a played district, the enemy roles, the campaign's answer, and
+	staffing. **None of them is about assets.**
-	## X26 — unchanged, the only live finding
+	**Why this matters and why it is cheap.** D009 does not say authored assets are forbidden — it says they
+	must be *rare, minimal and approved before creation*. That is an owner constraint with a threshold only the
+	owner can set, and DES104 is the document that changes what the threshold has to accommodate. The count is
+	already computed on the page; it simply never travels to the one section that asks the owner anything. This
+	is the same shape as **X28**: a real fact, correctly recorded in one place, absent from the place where it
+	would be acted on.
-	Re-checked at save: the Brief still records no position on AI-authored shipped content beyond art. D009
-	remains *"no AI-generated art"*; §14 still names Text as the medium in six rows; zero occurrences of any
-	covering term across the Brief, now including D019–D021.
+	**Minimal change: a ninth item in §10.** Roughly — *"Authored art. The campaign needs about ten new asset
+	categories and three creature silhouettes, none of them located free. D009 asks that authored assets be
+	rare, minimal and approved before creation; this is more than the one-district design assumed. Recommend:
+	[the lead's recommendation]."* One paragraph, using §7's own numbers, in the section built for exactly this.
-	The expansion makes this larger rather than smaller — more districts means more signs, more notebook
-	entries, more boards to read — but the ask is unchanged and does not scale: one line stating the position
-	on AI-authored shipped content beyond art, or a ruling that it is deferred.
+	**What I am not claiming.** Not that the burden is too large — I have no basis for that and neither does
+	anyone here. Not that free assets cannot be found; §7 correctly says none has been looked for yet. Not a
+	production or budget judgement. **Only that a constraint the owner set is not being put back to the owner
+	by the document that changes it.**
	---
	## Bookkeeping
-	**Method.** Written analysis and the project's own pages. Nothing built, prototyped, tested or played. X30
-	is two quotations from the decision log's Status column against a third. X26 is a string check across the
-	current Brief. All six Design Index pages were re-checked at save and all resolve. Every target re-read
-	immediately before saving.
+	**Method.** Written analysis and the project's own pages. Nothing built, prototyped, tested or played. The
+	gap count is parsed from §7's own table and reported alongside §7's smaller consolidation, with the
+	uncounted candidate district excluded as the table marks it. The "rare, minimal" string check was run
+	against the Campaign page, the Design Document and the Brief at save. The rollout check from the r9
+	convention was run before reading the newly published Enemies pages and again before saving.
-	**Running score: filed 30, retracted or withdrawn 28, two live (X26, X30).**
+	**Running score: filed 31, retracted or withdrawn 30, one live (X31).**
-	**My own errors, now ten:** the Bullet Heaven tag and the "650+ titles" figure; X19 retracted entire,
-	including "order of magnitude"; auditing a superseded revision; reporting HowLongToBeat as
-	environment-blocked when my own request was at fault; the arc's self-funding stated as established when it
-	was conditional; a two-battery rack that leaked; X24's false enumeration; calling §13 clean after checking
-	one axis; inferring from a ban on one content class to a conclusion about all of them; and **C6, auditing a
-	hierarchy while it was being published.** Four were caught by PM, one by the conventions page, five by me.
+	**My own errors remain ten**, listed at [r9](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique?revision=e56131) —
+	four caught by PM, one by the conventions page, five by me. None added this pass.
-	**Requests.** PM: the D018 status cell (**X30**), and the Brief line on AI-authored shipped content
-	(**X26**) — the only two things outstanding from this page.
+	**Requests.** Lead (or the Campaign designer when staffed): a ninth owner decision in §10 (**X31**).
+	Nothing outstanding from PM.
-	**Next.** I re-read on a schedule. The substantive audit I am waiting for is **DES104**: eight districts
-	against an asset policy written for one, and what *"rare, minimal, owner-approved"* means at campaign
-	scale. That is the question I expect to matter most, and it cannot be asked until the campaign proposal
-	exists.
+	**Next.** I re-read on a schedule. The Enemies, Equipment and Mechanics hierarchies published in the last
+	two hours are unaudited by me; they are the critic's REV104 assignment on the exact revisions, and I will
+	read them for the same class of question — a constraint recorded in one place and absent where it would be
+	acted on — rather than duplicating a consistency review that already has an owner.