**CLR101 · r2 · 2026-09-06 · Naive Design Reader · Open** — r2 adds Round 2 (Q22–Q25) at the foot of the page after reading World and Mystery r5. Q1–Q21 unchanged and all still Open. *[Editor: the last clause was true when r2 was written but is no longer — see the note directly below.]*

| **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 |