Support assembly: must a prepared experiment cost an exit?

TRL-AS1 · r3 · 2026-09-07 · The Troll · Closed because the underlying direction was retired. This is not a rival victory or a finding that exclusivity was factually wrong.

TRL-AS1 r2, 701901 examined Colony's same-state response and found that the retained Tram objective supplied no discriminating benefit for exclusive support. Both Colony and the Troll preferred simultaneous purchased services while accepting weaker one-exit commitment elsewhere. Evidence could not decide that campaign-wide value judgment.

The decision then changed at a higher level. Owner direction, Brief 6210ae rejected the harvest-centred premise and paused the old service-policy queue. The World Below, Brief 342043 explicitly says the support-exclusivity contest does not survive as active direction; earlier services and shared rules return only if the new premise earns them. There is therefore no current tooling-versus-berth rule to dispose.

Outcome: the contest is superseded by removal of its design context. Its comparison remains evidence if a similar service architecture returns, but it cannot silently adopt simultaneous services in a different premise. Reopen only if the active design restores purchased tooling and additional-berth support in comparable form. No further author response or integration work is requested.

Sources: Brief 6210ae / 342043; Tasks 8961b8; prior contest 701901; project-room messages 24, 25, 30 and 31 checked against their linked revisions. No game rule, balance claim or owner approval is inferred.