| **Q1** | **Please add a short plain-language glossary page** — one line each, no cross-references — covering at minimum: *survivorlike, run/expedition, build, build expression, meta-progression, the Flood, surge, dispatch, intake, forecast, beacon, panel, rack, module, bundle, salvage, cargo, deposit, coil, cutter, insulation, charge, mote, sluice, culvert, causeway, hatch, chokepoint, telegraphed, counterplay, stat gate, XP.* A reader should be able to read direction A start to finish with that one page open. | all pages | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |

| **Q9** | **"Dry without payment" (the culvert) is opaque.** I think it means "you do not have to spend a bundle running a pump to keep it dry", but a first reader cannot tell what currency "payment" refers to. Plainer wording, please. | Design §Topology, World §Topology | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |

| **Q10** | **How does the player get hurt, and can they heal?** "Losing all health" ends an expedition, and shelters cost "never health", so health exists — but no page states how much there is, what removes it, whether it regenerates, whether it carries across the three surges, or whether any healing exists. | Answered at Design r3 (0b4039) |

| **Q15** | **Tasks says nothing has been delivered; three pages are full of deliverables.** Tasks lists DES101 "Ready", WLD101 "Ready", REV101 "Waiting for first submission", and states "no specialist handoff was present in the wiki index" and "No specialist submission has yet been accepted". Meanwhile Design is at r2 plus three integration notes, World and Mystery at r5, and Design Review at r4. The Hub repeats it: all three specialists are "wiki acknowledgment pending", and "no specialist work pages or handoffs were present in the wiki index". **A reader who starts at the Hub or Tasks — which is what a newcomer does — will conclude the project has not begun.** | Tasks §Active design sequence, Hub §Current design team | Answered at Tasks ee938e (PMR001): the sequence now shows DES101, WLD101 and REV101 accepted and CLR101 tracked |

| **Q19** | **Has agent access to the new wiki been verified or not?** Brief D010 status: "agent-interface access verified at the new address." Hub §Working agreement: "Current access permissions at the moved wiki have not been verified." | Brief D010 vs Hub | Answered at the Hub: the unverified-access sentence is gone, so it no longer disagrees with Brief D010 |

**Q21 (Partly: Design r3 moves bookkeeping to the end; the owner document will carry codes only in an appendix).** Direction A is currently readable only by someone holding six documents in their head at once. A single sentence can carry four references: *"REV101 Findings 1 and 2 are resolved by one spine rule… Findings 3 and 4 and Secondary 1, 2 and 4 are addressed… Finding 5 gets a DES102 commitment."* The codes — DES101, WLD101, REV101, W1–W4, S1–S3, N1–N10, D001–D012, plus revision hashes — are excellent for tracking who owes whom what, and I am not asking you to drop them from your working pages. My question is whether **the owner-facing document can be written so that a reader who has never seen this wiki can read it end to end without following a single cross-reference**, with all bookkeeping moved to an appendix. Tasks criterion 1 already asks you to "explain it in its own terms"; I would like to know that this is taken to include the vocabulary.

| **Q23** | **Does the signature interaction still work after r5 moved the beacons?** This matters more than its size because it is *the* scene meant to sell direction A — it is the one concrete moment the owner will read. Design §Signature interaction has the electrician "wait on the ledge for surge two to **wade into the channel** before discharging", which needs the surge to be standing in water. r5 puts the yard beacon **at the pump hall** and says a surge "enters beside its beacon and, while that beacon stays lit, **holds there**". So does the arriving surge stand in the shallow channel, or at the pump hall beside its beacon? If it holds at the beacon, the electrician's stun-and-harvest does not happen as written. The same paragraph also says "Surge one is **dispersing** on the causeway", where r5 says a surge **holds** at its lit beacon — dispersing and holding are opposite pictures of what a surge does after it arrives, and a reader cannot form either one. | Design §Signature interaction vs World r5 §Topology | Answered at Design r4 (42f653): the yard intake is the channel beside the pump hall, so the surge stands in water; surge one now holds rather than disperses |

| **Q26** | **The surge-split rule can never happen.** Spine rule 3 says: "If two fixed beacons pulse at one dispatch, the surge splits between them and the forecast shows both." But the same sentence, four words earlier, says the panel "alone decides which, or none", and the panel is a three-position switch — causeway, yard, or off. If only one branch can ever be powered, two fixed beacons can never pulse at once, and this rule can never fire. So it is either dead text that should go, or there is an unstated second way to power both branches at the same time. I notice the spine rule also says "a valve that joins channels extends where current reaches" — if joining two channels with a valve is what lights both beacons, that sounds like a genuinely lovely thing for a player to discover, and it is currently a secret from the reader as well as the player. Which is it? | Design r4 §spine rule 3 | Answered at World and Mystery r7 (fa3eb1b) W1: two fixed beacons pulse when a coil discharge lights the second branch across a dispatch (Design r4 coil route); lead to confirm; confirmed by the lead at Design r5 (b030c9), spine rule 3 now states it |

| **Q31** | Design Document §2 says the culvert is "Walkable and dry: **the pump hall's one running pump keeps it that way**, and the player never pays anything for it." World and Mystery r8, saved about four minutes earlier, says the culvert is "**a gravity drain: dry on its own, never pumped, never paid for**", and its own report lists "culvert account unified as a gravity drain" as a thing it deliberately fixed. So the document carries the version the world designer had just retired. **Why it is worth a sentence rather than a shrug:** clause 2 of the one rule says a device works only while energised, so a reader who is told a pump keeps the culvert dry immediately asks what powers that pump — and the pump hall's hatch is shut unless the yard is lit, so the machine keeping the escape route open lives in a room the player usually cannot enter. Under the gravity-drain version none of that arises: nothing powers it, nothing can stop it, and the promise that withdrawal never depends on solving the mystery stays true by construction rather than by luck. **The reason I am flagging it now rather than waiting:** §16 lists "The culvert is kept dry by the pump hall's pump" under **Resolved in this draft**. Once something is on the resolved list it stops getting looked at, and this one is resolved in the opposite direction from the page that owns it. | Design Document §2 and §16 vs World and Mystery r8 | Answered at World and Mystery r10 (c6f0598), integration check item 1: the draft's running pump also breaks its own clause 2 (the yard circuit is dark by default, and a device works only while energised); resolution proposed for DES102 r2 is r8's account, a gravity drain and a dead pump beside the tally board; the lead applies it |

| **Q32** | Clause 3 introduces a distinction the design did not have before: the district has a **power line** and a **signal line**, the panel switches both, the dispatch pulse travels the signal line only, and current you inject yourself "travels power, never signal — so it can draw a surge that is already inside, but it can never choose where the next surge enters." As a piece of engineering this is the neatest fix in the packet: it gives PM's "the coil cannot select the intake" a physical reason instead of an exception, and Appendix B is honest that the two lines are new and exist for that purpose. My question is not whether the rule is good. It is **how a player ever finds out it exists.** I have read sections 7, 9 and 12 and the clue list, and the two lines appear nowhere in them — no cable you can follow, no marking at the panel, no difference you can see between a beacon lit by the panel and a beacon lit by your own coil. The whole design rests on rules being learnable by watching, and on clues being fair. Put yourself in the player's chair: you light the yard beacon with your coil, you reasonably conclude you have done what the panel does, you plan the next ninety seconds around the surge coming to the yard — and it enters at the causeway. Without a visible cause, the honest lesson a player takes from that is not "there must be two circuits", it is **"the rule I worked out is unreliable"**, which is the single worst thing that can happen to a game about deducing a rule. What does the player *see* that tells them apart — two cables running side by side, a second colour, a marking at the panel, a beacon that flashes differently when it is the relay's pulse rather than your charge? One observable cue is all this needs, and it belongs next to the rule rather than in an appendix. | Design Document §4 clause 3 and Appendix A vs §7, §9, §12 | Answered at Design Document r4 (46b320) (first at r3): each panel position has a thick power cable and a thin signal cable running side by side to the beacon; at every dispatch the pulse is seen travelling the thin cable before the beacon flashes, so a coil-lit beacon is steady and never flashes; stated in section 4, the mystery's Understand row, the failed-experiment lesson in section 8, and the readable-state table |

| **Q35** | Owner decision 4 is titled **"The ending, the length and the price."** It now tells the owner the exact refund terms and that "measured storefront prices put crowd games and mystery games in two bands that do not overlap", both from [Reference/Survivorlike Market Data](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data). Two of the three things named in that heading are therefore given real measured context. **The third — length, which is the one the owner is actually being asked to choose — is not.** The same reference page measured eleven comparables and found engaged-player medians of **9.3 to 46.2 hours** against this design's three to four; the two lowest, Pathogenic at 9.3 h and 20 Minutes Till Dawn at 12.6 h, are still three to four times the proposal; and Blue Prince sits at **27.1 h despite being a solve-it-once mystery**, which is the closest structural match to this design's "the notes persist" problem. The reference page is careful about its own limits — reviewers self-select toward heavy play, the figures are biased high by an unknown amount, and the "under 2 h" column is explicitly not a refund rate — and its own conclusion is that three to four hours is not wrong but is "unusual for this shelf, which is a thing the owner should be told in section 17 rather than discover after launch." I can see the document has noticed: §16 and the PM report ask whether comparables and length should join the document criteria. But that routes the question to PM while decision 4 goes to the owner without it. **A reader with no games-industry background cannot supply that context themselves** — three to four hours reads as a neutral fact, not an unusual one — and that is the whole of my remit. One sentence in decision 4, carrying REF102's bias caveat across honestly, would put the owner on the same footing as the team. I am not arguing the game should be longer; a short deliberate game is a legitimate thing to build and the length is the owner's call. I am saying they cannot currently make that call from what is on the page, while they *can* make the price call from the page directly above it. | Design Document §17 decision 4 vs Reference/Survivorlike Market Data §3 | Answered at Design Document r6 (12779d): decisions 4 and 6 are merged into one shelf decision that carries the reference page's price bands and playtime medians (about nine to forty-six hours, the solve-once mystery at about twenty-seven) with its reviewer-bias caveat, the refund terms, and the honest options including shipping short and cheap knowingly; the owner page and section 16 updated to match |

| **Q37** | Two live pages contradict each other on whether the owner required the title, and the contradiction is inside a heading that says "Owner requirements". **[Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) §17:** *"Hold the Flood is the owner's **working name** for the project. It is **not among the owner's recorded requirements**, so it can change, and an outside critic has argued it should."* **[World and Mystery r12](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery) header, under "Owner requirements", saved 15:07 UTC — after the sentence above existed:** *"…Unity; Steam; assume nothing exists; **\"Hold the Flood\" is the owner's title**."* The [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief)'s confirmed-requirements list does not mention a title, which is what [EXT101's X9](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique) said and it was right on the Brief's text. **One of the two sentences is false.** What makes it worth a question rather than a typo report is everything that happened around it: X9 was **withdrawn** at EXT101 r4 as answered, because the Design Document answered it — but a document answering a finding is not the wiki answering it; [REV102 r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review) then issued *"ready for owner review"* without it appearing in the finding index; PM was asked by REV102 r1 to *"record it or mark it provisional"* and has not; and the world designer carried the clause forward in the same revision whose stated purpose was *"to make a third crossing impossible"*. Four roles each checked the page they own, and the seam between them is where a requirement the owner never gave is currently sitting, one revision away from the owner. Two one-line fixes settle it: the world designer deletes the clause or produces the owner citation, and PM records the title's status in the decision log. The general form of the question, which I think is the more useful one for this page: **when a finding is withdrawn because one page answered it, who checks the other pages that still carry it?** | World and Mystery r12 header vs Design Document §17 vs Brief §Confirmed requirements | Answered at World and Mystery r14 (e2d4b49) and Brief D017: the title is the owner-supplied working project title, not a recorded requirement; r14 moves it out of the page's owner-requirements line and says so in the title paragraph, crediting this question; final naming is the owner's and is not locked |

| **Q39** | Appendix A's entry for the modules reads **"Coil, insulation, beacon (module), kit, siphon: the modules, section 5."** Section 5 names **seven**: those five plus **battery** and **arc**. So a reader who does what the document tells them to do — meet a term, look it up in the appendix — gets a list of the modules that is missing two of them, including the arc, which is the piece the whole genre question in decision 4 turns on. Related, and the reason I think it is worth the edit rather than shrugging: **"battery" has no entry of its own in Appendix A at all**, though the word is used thirty-three times and the battery is the second most important object in the game after the rack. It is mentioned inside the entries for *Link* and *Leak / drip*, so a determined reader can reconstruct it, but the appendix's own promise is that terms are collected there. The arc does have its own entry, correctly. The fix is two lines: add battery and arc to the roster entry, and give battery its own line. I am not raising it as a contradiction — section 5 is right and the appendix is simply behind it by one revision, which is the ordinary cost of the arc moving into minimum scope late. | Design Document Appendix A vs §5 | Answered at Design Document r10 (8afa59): Appendix A now lists all seven modules including battery and arc, and the battery has its own entry |

| **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 | Answered at Design Document r11 (6fe6ca), kept at r12 (50840d), section 14: "free" is not one thing (CC0 no conditions; BY credit; share-alike attaches terms to adaptations; no-derivatives forbids adapting), tinting or resizing is an adaptation, each asset's own licence decides the cheap route, the Reference Researcher's asset-licences page is cited, and the Brief's per-asset record must state whether the use is a derivative |