**Status:** working proposal for the three-visit discovery example. It does not establish a universal language, final journal interface, Dorn's wider knowledge or station history. Legibility, value and cost remain untested.

The preferred structure is **player-led physical inference with optional, truthful survivor interpretation**. The player can reach a reasoned next decision by comparing things in the station. Dorn can make that comparison clearer and more human, but neither his rescue nor a dialogue flag makes machinery usable.

| Kind | What the player receives | What it can establish |

|---|---|---|

| Physical evidence | Framed still/facsimile, location and visible context | What was present when observed |

| Player hypothesis | The player's wording | A theory to test, never authored fact |

| Character statement | Speaker, claim and basis | What that person recalls in that context |

| Established local use | Repeated cases plus a successful application | A practical prediction, not unique literal meaning |

The recurring wall string can support “this wall offers access through it.” Literal meanings such as *access*, *service way*, *removable wall*, or maintenance responsibility remain possible. Entering one crawlway confirms that route works, not the wording or every marked access.

Inspecting and recording a clue completes in world time. The record contains a deliberately framed view and location, without an automatic title, interpretation or deduction. Opening or reading the journal then pauses the entire game, including enemies, oxygen use and other world processes, as required by the owner.

Captured records persist on return and through death and revival. They are knowledge, not cargo or cache contents. Personal notes retain exactly what the player wrote and remain hypotheses. No in-game free-text editor is required; any later annotation interface must not silently correct or promote notes.

No record grants hidden permission: a panel works before its marking is understood. Knowledge changes which wall to open and route to budget for. A wrong attempt gives visible feedback and a recoverable next action.

This inventory follows [Discovery Chain](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Discovery%20Chain).

| Instance | Required visible states | Contribution and limit |

|---|---|---|

| Door junction | String beside closed door; identical string on blank wall | Recurs; simple door label weakens, other readings survive. |

| Open-panel site | Matching string; panel off; continuous enterable crawlway | Reveals a correlate without choosing duct, passage or marked wall. |

| Return to blank wall | Panel on and seam visible, then removed; crawlway behind | Tests the player's prediction but not duct versus usable access. |

| Negative case | Unstringed duct visible through grille; run welded closed | Rejects “every duct is stringed”; maintenance responsibility survives. |

| Route use/failure | Earlier string near jammed door; crawlway clear, collapsed, welded or sealed | Changes route choice; distinguishes intended access from present condition. |

Strings, seams, panels and crawlways must agree in every visit order. The earned result is that a stringed wall was intended as passable access. “Marks any duct” is displaced; “marks maintenance responsibility” survives.

Panel work is a deliberate world action: inspect the seam, release visible fasteners with the suit's baseline cutter, move the panel and enter while oxygen and threats continue. Paused journal views cannot reveal behind it or complete a stage. Current [Build Rules](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Build%20Rules) make that cutter suit-issued, with no general-capacity cost, so Discovery Chain's “pack the cutter rather than an extra module” is not yet a valid loadout tradeoff. The changed decision here is route, oxygen margin and exposure; cutter-versus-module needs a separately proposed carried tool.

Dorn's strongest useful line is concrete rather than a cryptic question:

This proposed line is distinct from Dorn's paint. Firsthand use of two marked crawls grounds the crew's practical gloss and the advice to inspect a seam. Dorn does not know the literal wording, whether it names access or maintenance responsibility, or whether age blocked a route. He does not decide which crawl is worth the oxygen.

Dialogue needs bounded variants:

- With no record, Dorn cannot expose an unseen route.

- With one string recorded, he gives the crew term “crawl mark,” his firsthand basis and the actionable suggestion to inspect the panel seam.

- With an open-panel record, he confirms the pictured arrangement, not every duct or string.

- With the negative case or failed access, he separates intended access from present condition and leaves the rival open.

Without Dorn, the open panel, returnable blank wall and unstringed welded duct support the same inference. Missed strings recur under fixed geometry; records retain anchor-relative breadcrumbs. After failure, visible collapse or welding explains it and the jammed-door route remains a costly fallback. None requires survivor state.

The strongest alternative makes Dorn's interpretation required. It offers clearer pacing, an accessible explanation and a conspicuous colony payoff, and could require fewer environmental comparisons. Its exact gate is **Dorn rescued and aboard, with a wall-string record shown in the matching dialogue state, before the player receives authored information sufficient to recognise and choose the crawlway around the jammed door**. That makes discovery depend on completing one rescue and revisiting the wall; it is a cost of this variant, not an inherent property of survivor help.

The preferred optional-help variant preserves independent physical reasoning and lets Dorn add trustworthy human context. It costs more authored consistency: at least three matching string sites, removable panel and seam states, one unstringed welded duct, one optional unusable marked access, four dialogue conditions, journal facsimiles and anchor-relative locations, failure feedback, and reverse-order continuity. The required-help variant saves some environmental redundancy but spends bespoke dialogue-state and rescue-gate handling. Neither comparison establishes production feasibility, comprehension or fun.

Reopen the preference if readers cannot distinguish evidence from interpretation, optional dialogue merely repeats an already obvious answer, the unaided route depends on pixel hunting, or the required authoring cannot be kept consistent across return and death.