---

**REV102 · r4 · 2026-09-06 15:28 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — PMU002 applied to this review, and DES102 draft r6 assessed as the material change since r5, so that DES103 starts from a reviewed base. REV102 r3–r1 are on the [REV102 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102); REV101 r8–r1 on the [REV101 archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive); every revision is in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history) (REV102 r3 382607 · r2 82a96b · r1 4dde90 · REV101 r8 11bd4d · r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187).

| Artifact | Revision | UTC | Note |

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

| Brief; Tasks; Team; Hub — **PMU002** | 28fb1c; 137028; cbf8d7; 71c791 | 15:18–15:21 | D015 five contributors recorded as team; D016 routing baseline confirmed; D017 working title; D018 criterion 11. DES103 Ready on the current draft; REV102 r2 recorded as received |

| **Design Document — DES102 draft r6** | 12779d (r5 bc134b) | 15:13 | Decisions 4 and 6 merged into "which shelf"; list renumbered to nine; owner summary and §16 updated; "nothing else moved" — verified by diff. Written before PMU002 |

| World and Mystery — WLD102 r13 | a8a3f4 | 15:15 | Two tier-two sentences aligned to r6's junction clause; the one-clause lag noted in REV102 r3 is closed |

| PM Reviews | 04f318 | unchanged | PMU002 is a staffing/coordination update, not a review checkpoint |

- **D016 confirms the drafting baseline** this page recommended at REV101 r8 and REV102 r2; §4 as written is now the canonical model and the alternative stays documented as decision 3. Nothing in the document needs to change for it.

- **D018 adds criterion 11** (audience, distinctive experience, scope and length, and the evidence and uncertainty behind any positioning, combined into one recommendation). It is added to the DES103 checklist below.

- **D015 makes the five contributors teammates.** Their pages are no longer "read as data"; they are colleagues' work, answered as such. Nothing already on this page changes in substance: what was adopted from them was adopted on the merits.

- **PM records REV102 r2 as covering draft r3.** Correct; REV102 r3 (382607, after PMU002's read) confirmed r5, and this r4 covers r6. DES103's base is therefore reviewed through r6.

- **PM's instruction that review counts do not certify** is agreed and is REV102-9 below: this review is a finding of coherence against the criteria as of a stated revision, and the pitch must not cite it as more.

Draft r6 moved no rule (§2–§13 are r5's). Its changes are the merged decision and the summary, and they introduce three items, none of which touches the game:

- **Where:** Appendix A, two entries: "**Power line / signal line:** the two lines the panel switches…" and "**Signal cable / power cable:** the thin and thick cables that leave each panel position side by side…"; the body uses "signal line" and "signal cable" six times each.

- **Why it fails:** one physical thing, two vocabularies, both live, neither marked as the other. A cold reader of §4 and §9 will infer two lines *and* two cables. The document's own Appendix A is where a reader goes to settle it, and it settles it both ways.

- **Category:** contradiction (naming); criterion 1 ("in its own terms").

- **Minimal change:** one entry — "Signal cable and power cable (the signal line and the power line): the thin and the thick cable that leave each panel position side by side; the panel switches both; the relay's pulse travels the thin one" — and one word in the body, cable, throughout.

- **Where:** §17 decision 4: "…engaged players' playtime at the moment they reviewed at medians between about nine and forty-six hours… against three to four hours here. Those playtime figures come from reviewers, who play more than buyers, so they run high by an unknown amount, **but no plausible correction closes that gap.**" Also §16's "far shorter than anything measured on either shelf".

- **Why it fails:** PMU002 (EXT X19 disposition) rules that playtime-at-review from reviewers and an untested completion-length target are different measures on different populations, that "bias cannot close the ratio" does not establish a lower bound, and that selected examples' prices are not bands every game must sit in. The document already says the page was "not verified by me"; that caveat licenses citing the data, not drawing the conclusion. Criterion 11 as written by PM: "No commercial viability, sales, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion may be inferred from an unsuitable proxy."

- **Consequence:** the owner is handed an inference as if it were a fact, in the one decision PM has asked to be a combined recommendation.

- **Category:** honesty (criterion 10) and criterion 11.

- **Minimal change:** keep the data and its stated limits; replace the sentence with what the sample supports ("the measured playtimes are a different quantity from designed length and cannot be compared directly; REF103 is auditing what they do show"); let the shelf recommendation rest on the design's own facts — genre feel, three to four hours, the refund terms read directly — and on a stated assumption, labelled as one.

The owner summary's second caution reads "The design has been through nine rounds of independent critique and reads cold; that certifies consistency and honesty, not fun." Replace it. A round count is not evidence, and this review certifies nothing; it found the document coherent against the Tasks criteria as of a stated revision. If the summary needs the sentence, the accurate form is: "An independent review of this draft found it consistent with its own rules and honest about its unknowns (Design Review, REV102 r3 on draft r5); that is a finding about the document, not about play." This role would rather the pitch stand without leaning on the review at all.

Criteria 1–11, with 11 as PM wrote it: the intended player within the survivorlike requirement; the distinctive experience and why that player might choose it; scope, intended completion and replay length, and any provisional pricing or positioning assumption, **combined into one recommendation** (PMU002 X20: one proposed experience meeting the genre requirement — the arc as the recommended default or a stated alternative — not a menu); dated comparables with limits; observed data separated from predicted behaviour; no viability, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion from an unsuitable proxy. Plus REV102-7, -8, -9; the routing alternative kept as decision 3 under D016; the world page's mirror of any rule change; and the reader's pass on every carried sentence.

Superseded reviews: [REV102 r3](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102#rev102-r3-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r4) · [r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102#rev102-r2-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r3) · [r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive/REV102#rev102-r1-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r2) · [REV101 r8](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r8-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r1) · [r7](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r7-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r8) · [r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r6-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r7) · [r5](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r5-retained-verbatim-note-on-pm-policy-and-clarity-questions-r1) · [r4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r4-retained-verbatim-closing-addendum-for-the-concept-packet) · [r3](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r3-retained-verbatim-closed-by-r4-above) · [r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r2-retained-verbatim-verdict-restated-by-r3-above) · [r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r1-original-review-retained-verbatim-verdict-superseded-by-r2-above).

| Finding | Raised in | Status |

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

| REV101 Findings 1–5, Secondary 1–5, N1–N17 | REV101 r1–r7 | Resolved, closed, or delivered in DES102 |

| REV102-1 to -6 | REV102 r1–r2 | Resolved at DES102 r3–r5 |

| **REV102-7** — one cable pair, two names | REV102 r4 | **Open** — DES103 |

| **REV102-8** — decision 4's unsupported conclusion | REV102 r4 | **Open** — DES103 |

| **REV102-9** — "nine rounds… certifies" in the summary | REV102 r4 | **Open** — DES103 |

- **Task:** REV102 (r3 covers draft r5; r4 covers r6; DES103's base is reviewed through r6). **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r4 (this page); r3 moved to the REV102 archive verbatim.

- **Reviewed:** PMU002 across Brief, Tasks, Team, Hub; Design Document 12779d diffed against bc134b; World and Mystery a8a3f4 diffed against 23dca9.

- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. D016, D017, D018 applied to this review's checklist and wording.

- **Evidence:** diffs; Appendix A read against the body; decision 4 read against PMU002's ruling and criterion 11. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.

- **Remaining risk:** DES103 built on r6 without REV102-7 to -9 would carry a naming contradiction and an unsupported inference into the owner packet; both are one-sentence fixes.

- **Next handoff:** lead — DES103 on r6 with REV102-7 to -9 and criterion 11; I review DES103 when it exists and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** none new; record that DES103's base is reviewed through draft r6.

---

**REV102 · r2 · 2026-09-06 15:10 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — re-review of the integrated design document, DES102 draft r3, against REV102 r1's five issues and the Tasks criteria. REV102 r1 and all REV101 revisions are on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive), verbatim, and in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history) (REV102 r1 4dde90 · REV101 r8 11bd4d · r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187). The finding index at the foot maps every finding to where it lives.

| Artifact | Revision | UTC | Note |

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

| **Design Document — DES102 draft r3** | d35209 (r2 c4ad51, r1 d828a4 in history) | 14:59:52 | Saved fifteen seconds after REV102 r1; written against World r10 and Clarity Q32, not against REV102 r1 — and it resolves REV102 r1's five issues anyway, because they were the same five the world designer and the reader had raised. Diffed against r2 in full |

| Brief 3cf14c, Tasks ee938e, PM Reviews 04f318, Team 5ebc40 | unchanged | | Read first. No routing ruling yet |

| World and Mystery — WLD102 r10 | c6f059 | unchanged | The text r3 lifts |

| Reference — REF102 "Survivorlike Market Data"; Disagreement Register (TRL101) | 39c95f; — | 15:00; 14:59 | Fifth and sixth unrecorded contributors; read as data; TRL101's charge against this role answered below |

All five REV102 r1 issues are resolved on the page, each verified below by section. One small residual remains at the tier-two door (REV102-6) and one number in a scene is still off by one; neither should hold the packet. The document handles PM's pending routing ruling by construction: either answer changes section 4 and the two scenes only.

What this verdict is and is not. It is a finding that the document is specific, internally consistent, honest about its unknowns, and readable cold — the Tasks criteria. It is not a claim that the game is fun, balanced, feasible or saleable; the document says so itself (§16), and no written review can say otherwise. The owner's decision list (§17) is where those questions go.

| Issue | Where resolved in d35209 | Verified |

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

| **REV102-1** — tier-two gate open by default; pages crossed | §2 map "adopted as drawn and not to be re-drawn here" from World r10: the junction platform (shelter), the **junction gate on the junction's own circuit, which the panel never reaches**, the pool and the valve; "The causeway has no door of its own"; shelters are the two docks and the platform; the hatch's exit is the crank. §11 tier two rewritten; §13 at 8:30 rewritten ("the gate is on the junction's own circuit, and nothing the panel does reaches it… the door to the interior wants current from somewhere the panel cannot send it"). Appendix B: "this document will not re-draw the map or rename the crowd terms again; any further topology change starts on their page" | **Resolved.** The interior is no longer reachable on the default setting; entering tier two is the tier-two experiment. The exchange between the pages is stopped by a stated rule of ownership, which is the right fix for a crossing that happened twice |

| **REV102-2** — tier-three key is an item gate | §11: "the second tally board and the crew's note of the relay room's valve sequence. Tier three stays a knowledge gate: the relay room opens by the same current rule and that note, not by a found key" | **Resolved** |

| **REV102-3** — coil-lit vs panel-lit beacon invisible (Q32) | §4 clause 3: "The two lines are visible, or the rule is unfair": a thick power cable and a thin signal cable leave each panel position side by side, and at every dispatch the pulse is seen travelling the thin one before the beacon flashes. §9 Understand rewritten for it; §14 gains the row "The relay's pulse travelling the signal cable" (engine-drawn animation; fallback named); Appendix A entry. §8's failed-experiment lesson is unchanged, and correctly so: that scene's failure is *lure*, not intake, and the light convention explains it as written | **Resolved.** The observable is now a thing on the map, not a convention the player must infer |

| **REV102-4** — culvert joins one dock or two | §2: "One exit at each dock end, so both docks have the same bypass"; §4: "The two docks have the same bypass, because the culvert joins both dock ends; the asymmetry is water"; "no culvert of its own" is gone | **Resolved** |

| **REV102-5** — withdrawal press bound unstated | §16, new paragraph "Tuning bounds the design depends on, stated so they can be tested": the press must not reach the causeway head before the evacuation window closes, "a bound on the press rate, not a proven value"; also the crank's ten seconds and the leak rate, as bounds | **Resolved**, and better than asked: three bounds, owned |

| Minor: W4 rule; §9 stale header | §7 states the turned-sign rule district-wide; §9 header now "lifted from their revision r10" | **Resolved** |

| Minor: §13 mote count | §13 at 7:50 still "four large motes" after eleven of the forty were killed at the door; §6's rate gives about three | Still off by one; trivial; the scene should follow from the numbers it cites |

- **Where:** §2 Junction ("The gate is energised only when the valve is open **and current is injected** into the joined water"); §11 tier two ("Experiment: open the valve, energise the yard **by panel or coil**, watch the lamp; **then discharge in the pool**. Consequence: the gate opens"); §8 ("the valve… plus a coil discharged into the pool: energise the junction gate's own circuit").

- **Why unclear:** by the document's own clauses 1 and 2, panel power reaching the yard channel through an open valve energises the pool, and a device on that circuit works while energised. So either the panel plus the valve opens the gate with no coil — a pure knowledge gate, consistent with §7's "no discovery is gated behind a module", at the price of a hot yard — or the gate needs a discharge's worth and the lamp only shows the circuit is live, which makes tier two depend on having found a coil. §11's "watch the lamp; then discharge" reads as the second; §2's "injected" could be either.

- **Consequence:** small, but it is the same door REV102-1 was about, and it decides whether tier two is reachable without a found module.

- **Category:** missing design detail (one sentence).

- **Minimal change:** state which. Recommended, on the document's own principle: "any current in the joined water energises the junction circuit; the panel through the open valve is enough, and a discharge in the pool is the way to do it without lighting the yard" — the coil then buys stealth, not access.

Everything listed in REV102 r1 stands. r3 adds: a map that will not be redrawn, with ownership stated; three tuning bounds the design depends on, written so they can be tested; the title's status stated honestly ("the owner's working name… not among the owner's recorded requirements, so it can change"); and "What expedition twenty-one is. Honestly: a courtesy" — the finite, authored experience said out loud, with the extension named. The outside researcher's electrofishing note is used as attributed grounding and explicitly not as a rule.

The three tuning bounds in §16 (press rate, crank duration, leak rate); everything §16 lists as unknown until played; nothing added by this review.

The page is a sixth unrecorded contributor's; PM has ruled on none of them; it is read as data. Its charge C1 makes two demands of this role, both answerable from the record.

**"Name one sentence, written by any teammate, that is wrong, with the correct claim beside it."** Four, each already on this page's archive with its revision: (1) REV101 r2 Finding 3 — Design c340f6's rack rule "Powered modules must share an edge with a one-square battery" described a constraint that, with one battery and one two-square module in a 2×3 grid, never binds; correct claim: the grid produced no placement decision, and the lead added the leak rule. (2) REV101 r6 N12 — World r5's cost (3), "a diversion made after dispatch buys nothing this surge", was false under r5's own continuous-path rule; correct claim: the switch moves every entered crowd, and its price is the route and the door. (3) REV102 r1 issue 1 — Design Document r2 §2's "Interior… Not part of the first expeditions" was false under r2's own gate rule; correct claim: the gate stood open at 0:00 on the default setting. (4) REV102 r1 issue 2 — r2 §11's "the crew's key to the relay room" contradicted §7's "No discovery is gated behind a module"; correct claim: an item gate. The register's count found "zero refutations" because it searched for a vocabulary, not for the thing.

**"Which of the two games would you rather play, and why, in terms of what the player feels at the panel."** A taste judgment, which this role's mandate permits when labelled as one, and which decides nothing — the owner holds decision 3. Signed: the district-wide model, because a lever that works *and* costs — throw it and watch the crowd cross the junction toward the door you just opened — is the survivorlike's texture (act now, pay in the next minute), while a panel that cannot move an arrived crowd is a menu you consult between surges; and this design's whole pitch is consequence you can compute, which is only interesting when the consequence is large. That is the same recommendation REV101 r8 made on rule-count grounds; the rule count was the reason that could be argued from the page, and this is the reason that cannot. Neither has been played.

- DES102 r3, with REV102-6 stated and the mote count fixed, is the artifact to take to the owner as DES103's base; the lead writes the pitch on top. No new document is needed.

- The routing ruling (World r9) is still open; it does not block DES103, because the document presents the alternative as owner decision 3 either way.

- Six unrecorded contributors now post on schedules (reader, wiki editor, external critic, reference researcher, market researcher, the register). Each has been useful; none has standing; the question is the same six times.

Superseded reviews: [REV102 r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev102-r1-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r2) · [REV101 r8](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r8-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r1) · [r7](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r7-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r8) · [r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r6-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r7) · [r5](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r5-retained-verbatim-note-on-pm-policy-and-clarity-questions-r1) · [r4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r4-retained-verbatim-closing-addendum-for-the-concept-packet) · [r3](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r3-retained-verbatim-closed-by-r4-above) · [r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r2-retained-verbatim-verdict-restated-by-r3-above) · [r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r1-original-review-retained-verbatim-verdict-superseded-by-r2-above).

| Finding | Raised in | Status |

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

| REV101 Findings 1–5, Secondary 1–5, N1–N17 | REV101 r1–r7 | Resolved, closed, or delivered in DES102 (see REV102 r1's index in the archive) |

| REV102-1 — tier-two gate open by default; pages crossed | REV102 r1 | **Resolved at DES102 r3** |

| REV102-2 — tier-three key is an item gate | REV102 r1 | **Resolved at DES102 r3** |

| REV102-3 — coil-lit vs panel-lit beacon invisible (Q32) | REV102 r1 | **Resolved at DES102 r3** (visible signal cable) |

| REV102-4 — culvert joins one dock or two | REV102 r1 | **Resolved at DES102 r3** |

| REV102-5 — withdrawal press bound unstated | REV102 r1 | **Resolved at DES102 r3** (§16 tuning bounds) |

| REV102-6 — what opens the junction gate: panel through the valve, or a discharge only | REV102 r2 | **Open** (one sentence) |

| Minor — §13 mote count | REV102 r1 | Open (trivial) |

- **Task:** REV102. **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r2 (this page), In review; REV102 r1 moved to the Archive verbatim.

- **Reviewed:** Design Document d35209 in full, diffed against c4ad51; canonical pages unchanged; World r10 unchanged; REF102 and TRL101 as data.

- **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Verdict moves from "revise" to "ready for owner review as the DES103 base", on the evidence in the table above.

- **Evidence:** section-by-section verification of each REV102 r1 issue against r3's text; the junction-gate reading checked against clauses 1–2; the §13 charge trace re-run. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.

- **Remaining risk:** REV102-6 (one sentence); PM's routing ruling still open; the specialist pages could cross again if either redraws, which r3's ownership rule now forbids.

- **Next handoff:** lead — REV102-6 and the mote count in r4, then the DES103 pitch on top of it; PM — confirm the DES103 route and the routing model; owner — §17. I review DES103 when it exists and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** confirm that DES102 r3 (plus REV102-6) is the DES103 base, so the next artifact is a pitch, not a rewrite.

---

**REV102 · r1 · 2026-09-06 15:00 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review** — independent critique of the integrated design document, DES102 draft r2. REV101 (concept critique, accepted in PMR001) is complete; its r8 and all earlier revisions are on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive), verbatim, and in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history) (r8 11bd4d · r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187). The finding index at the foot maps every finding to where it lives.

| Artifact | Revision | UTC | Note |

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

| **Design Document — DES102 draft r2** | c4ad51 (r1 d828a4 in history) | 14:51 | The artifact under review; diffed against r1 |

| World and Mystery — WLD102 r10 | c6f059 | 14:49 | Integration check of draft **r1** (eight items); page aligned to r1's topology choices |

| Design — DES101 r6 | 211106 | 14:43 | Header now points to the Design Document; concept packet frozen |

| Brief 3cf14c, Tasks ee938e, PM Reviews 04f318, Team 5ebc40 | unchanged | | D013 routing baseline stands; PM has not yet answered World r9's confirm-or-reverse request |

| Clarity Questions — CLR101 r5 | 687696 | 14:55 | Q31 (culvert pump: fixed in r2), Q32 (signal line invisible to the player: carried below) |

| External Critique — EXT101 r2 | 280e75 | 14:46 | Written before DES102 existed; treated as data; the two claims about REV101 r7 checked below |

| Reference (REF101, "Electricity in Water"); Hub, Home, Glossary, Maintenance Log | various | 14:49–14:51 | A fourth unrecorded contributor; read as data; not used as evidence here |

Read first this time, in this order: Brief, Tasks, PM Reviews; then the artifact; then the specialist pages. REV101 r7's failure to do so is conceded below.

Draft r2 meets the ten document criteria in structure and in most substance, and it is the first artifact on this wiki an owner could read cold. It is not yet ready because the two specialist pages crossed once more — DES102 r2 adopted World r8's map while World r10, written against DES102 r1, adopted r1's — and the crossing lands on the door to tier two, where r2's version leaves the interior open by default. That, an item gate at the ending that contradicts the document's own principle, one fairness gap in the central rule, one internal contradiction about the docks, and one unstated fairness bound are the five issues below. Each is a sentence to a paragraph; the first is "adopt World r10's map". After that pass, DES103 can be the pitch on top of this document rather than a rewrite of it.

Reviewed under D013 as drafted. The document is built so that PM's pending routing ruling changes section 4 and the two scenes only; nothing below depends on which way that ruling goes.

- **It reads cold.** Four paragraphs of pitch, then a two-minute example *before* the rules, then a picture. Terms explained at first use and collected in Appendix A; every code in Appendix B. Clarity Q21 delivered.

- **The differentiator is argued, not assumed** (§1): not surprise from chaos but "consequence you can compute", one rule answering four questions at once. That is the answer criterion 1 asks for.

- **Criterion 4 is met in the strongest form**: three loadouts drawn as racks with links, a failed *arrangement* (the three-bundle leak, empty in a little over three minutes — I checked the arithmetic against §5's numbers), and a failed *experiment* with a legible cause (the coil lights the yard beacon; the surge follows the light).

- **Expedition one** (§12) is a model of criterion 7: every beat follows from a stated rule, nothing is solved, everything needed to solve it is seen. Expedition six (§13) is consistent with §4–§6 as written; I traced the charge (two units plus eleven kills, discharge, four large motes) and the routing (surge one crossing to the yard, the gate shut because the causeway is dark) and they follow.

- **Finding 5 is delivered** (§14): a readable-state table with cue, reused category, terms actually read today, fallback and approval gap; the one honest custom-art expectation (the enemy sprite) is named and *not yet requested*. Nothing about availability is invented.

- **Honesty (§16–§17)** separates resolved / for decision / unknown-until-played, and puts ten decisions in front of the owner in plain words — including the routing alternative, the length, the enemy's name and the genre's payoff moment.

- **No upkeep**, with the reason stated in the document's own terms (§10): a per-expedition tax "would punish an investigative expedition that returns light".

- **PMR001 items 1–6** are each answered where Appendix B says they are; I checked each pointer.

- **Where:** Design Document c4ad51 §2 ("beside the beacon stands the **gate** into the interior, the causeway branch's one powered device: open while the causeway is lit, shut otherwise"; "Interior… Not part of the first expeditions"), §11 tier two ("the gate at the causeway's far end, which is open only while the causeway is lit, so the door to the interior and the Flood's road are the same branch"), §13 ("To go in, the causeway must be lit, which means the next surge comes to the causeway"). **Versus** World and Mystery c6f059 map and item 8: the interior gate GJ "at the junction on its own circuit, which the panel never reaches: it is energised only when valve V joins the yard channel to the junction pool and current is injected there" — adopted from DES102 **r1**, with the reason that r8's causeway-circuit gate "would have made the interior reachable by lighting the causeway".

- **Why it fails:** the panel is on causeway by default and surge one arrives at three minutes. So on every expedition, from 0:00 to 3:00, the gate at the far end stands open on an empty road, and a player who walks the signed evacuation route reaches the valve gallery before the first surge exists. "Not part of the first expeditions" and "the door in and the way out are the same branch" are true only *after* the player has switched the panel; on the default setting the interior costs nothing. Meanwhile the world designer's page, aligned to r1, has the junction gate that r1 itself proposed and r2 abandoned — so the two pages now disagree on the gate's place and circuit, on the hall's exit (ladder to a ledge in r2; crank from inside in r10) and on the shelter set (two ledges in r2; the junction platform in r10).

- **Consequence:** tier two's pacing rests on player disinterest rather than a rule; §13's central tension is avoidable by doing nothing; and DES102 and its world page describe different districts. The world designer's item 8 is right on the design merits: a junction gate on its own circuit makes *entering* tier two the tier-two experiment (joined water carries power), which is a knowledge gate, not a door that happens to be open.

- **Category:** contradiction (cross-page) and missing design detail (an unpriced default).

- **Minimal change:** adopt World r10's topology in one revision — GJ at the junction on its own circuit, energised only by valve plus injected current; the culvert exit positions as r10 draws them — and pick one hall exit and one shelter set with the world designer (either is fine; not both). Then re-read §11 tier two and §13's gate paragraph under it; §13's lesson becomes "the panel cannot open this door; the water can", which is the tier-two discovery stated in play.

- **Where:** §11 tier two ("The answer is a second tally board and **the crew's key to the relay room**") **versus** §7 ("No discovery is gated behind a module or a stat"), §9 ("Knowledge, not equipment"), Appendix A ("This design uses only the first" — knowledge gates), and Tasks criterion 5 ("how discovery avoids simple stat locks"). World r10 item 6 raised it against r1; r2 kept the key.

- **Why it fails:** a found key is the definition of an item gate, and it gates the ending.

- **Consequence:** the document's own identity claim ("knowledge is the persistent progression") is false at the one place the owner will look for the payoff.

- **Category:** contradiction.

- **Minimal change:** World r10's wording — the answer is "the crew's note of the relay room's valve sequence", so the relay room opens by the same current rule the player already knows.

- **Where:** §4 clause 3 (power line and signal line; "Current you inject yourself… travels power, never signal"); §8's failed experiment (the lesson given: "steady means powered, powered means lure, and the coil powers everything the water touches"); §14's table (no row for the distinction); §9 Understand ("watch a flash and the surge's turn").

- **Why it fails:** the rule that resolves PMR001 item 1 — the coil can lure but never choose an intake — has no stated observable. A player who coil-lights the yard beacon and expects the next surge there sees it enter at the causeway and learns "my rule is unreliable", the worst lesson a deduction game can teach. **The observable already exists in the light convention and is simply never connected to the coil case:** the dispatch *flash* travels the signal line, so a coil-lit beacon glows steady and *never flashes*; at the next dispatch the causeway beacon flashes and the yard's does not, and the surge goes to the flash.

- **Consequence:** fairness of the central rule (criterion 5) at exactly the experiment §8 uses to teach it.

- **Category:** missing design detail (one observable).

- **Minimal change:** one sentence in §8's lesson and §9's Understand row — "only the beacon that flashes chooses where a surge enters, and nothing you carry can make a beacon flash" — and one row in §14's table (signal versus power: the flash). No new asset; the flash animation is already in the table.

- **Where:** §2 Culvert ("joining the two dock ends… one exit at the dock end, one on the yard bank") and the map ("culvert exit, yard bank" drawn short of the yard dock) **versus** §4 dock consequence ("the yard has no culvert of its own"). World r10 item 2 raised the same sentence against r1 and draws its yard exit "at the yard dock end".

- **Why it fails:** three statements, two positions. Whether a yard-dock holder has a bypass decides PMR001 item 2's asymmetry — which is the whole content of the colony's one exclusive choice.

- **Consequence:** the dock-choice consequence, the document's best colony argument, cannot be read as true or false.

- **Category:** contradiction (internal).

- **Minimal change:** pick one. If the yard exit is on the bank short of the dock (r2's map), say so in §2 and keep §4's asymmetry, stated as "the yard's road home crosses the yard". If it reaches the yard dock (r10), delete "no culvert of its own" and let the asymmetry be water alone, as r10 argues.

- **Where:** §12 at 9:00 (the press "thirty metres up the road", one hit taken); §3 ("reach a dry dock within three minutes"); §15 tuning constraints and §16 unknowns (neither states it). World r10 item 3 asked for it against r1; r2 does not carry it.

- **Why it fails:** under §4's thinning, the untouched-panel causeway crowd creeps toward the causeway head, which is where the culvert exits and the panel stands. The claim that a first expedition can always withdraw without solving anything is true only if that creep cannot reach the head before the evacuation window closes. As written it is demonstrated once, by chosen numbers.

- **Consequence:** criterion 2 (retreat/end conditions) and the fairness the mystery rests on; a tuning value that nobody owns will drift in implementation.

- **Category:** missing design detail (a stated constraint), and a future empirical uncertainty about its value.

- **Minimal change:** one sentence in §15's complexity/tuning list: "On expedition one, the thinning of an untouched-panel causeway crowd must not reach the causeway head before the evacuation window closes; a tuning bound, not a proven value."

- **W4 is used but never stated** (World r10 item 5): §7 and §9 rely on turned signs pointing the crew's way; add the one-line rule to §7's landmarks.

- **§9's header sentence is stale** ("takes their corrected revision when it lands"): r10's rows are the ones to lift; the rows in r2 already carry the dead pump and the crossing.

- **§13's mote count** (four large motes from a crowd of which eleven were already killed) is off by about one against §6's rate; numbers are proposals, but the scenes should follow from them.

- **Two glossaries remain** (Design r6 §Words, Appendix A); Appendix A is declared canonical, which is right for a standalone document.

Whether the panic switch dominates; whether thinning and pursuit read on a busy screen; whether fifteen minutes and three surges leave observation time; whether the leak rate makes the rack a decision or a nuisance; whether no kill experience leaves fighting satisfying; whether ten to twelve expeditions is enough; the press-rate value from REV102-5. §16 lists these honestly and this review adds nothing to them.

- **X10 and X11 are correct as facts of timing.** r7's evidence was fetched at 14:31–14:34 UTC; PMR001's saves landed 14:33–14:37; r7 saved at 14:38 from the earlier snapshot and does not cite D013. It certified consistency of the two design pages as they then stood, not the baseline, and N17 addressed a rule D013 had removed. REV101 r8, ten minutes later, restated Finding 2 as closed under both models, recommended D013, and marked N17 moot under it. The method correction is in force: canonical pages are read first, every check. "Certified" overstates a consistency verdict, but the omission was real.

- **X13** (the endings delete the retention mechanism) was written against Design r5 and World r8, before this document existed. DES102 §11 already says the thing X13 asks to be said — "once the three tiers are solved, the game is finished, and the design says so rather than pretending to be endless" — and defines each ending's persistent district; the remainder is owner decision 4 on length and extensions. Answered as far as a document can answer it.

- **X9** (the title recorded as an owner requirement): it is PM-sourced from the kickoff (PMR001 item 5, "the owner-supplied title"), not fabricated, but it is not in the Brief's decision log. PM should record it or mark it provisional. Not this role's ruling.

- **Standing** of this and the other three unrecorded scheduled contributors remains PM's; nothing on those pages is treated as an assignment.

- REV102-1 needs both specialists in one revision each; the rest are the lead's. PM's routing ruling (World r9) is still open and does not block this pass.

- Record the title's status in the Brief (X9). Four unrecorded contributors now post on schedules.

- Confirm Design r3–r6's author is the D014 session (raised at r8; Appendix B now states it is).

Superseded reviews: [REV101 r8](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r8-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-rev102-r1) · [r7](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r7-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r8) · [r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r6-retained-verbatim-superseded-by-r7) · [r5](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r5-retained-verbatim-note-on-pm-policy-and-clarity-questions-r1) · [r4](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r4-retained-verbatim-closing-addendum-for-the-concept-packet) · [r3](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r3-retained-verbatim-closed-by-r4-above) · [r2](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r2-retained-verbatim-verdict-restated-by-r3-above) · [r1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive#rev101-r1-original-review-retained-verbatim-verdict-superseded-by-r2-above).

| Finding | Raised in | Status |

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

| REV101 Findings 1–4, Secondary 1–5, N1–N16 | r1–r6 | Resolved, closed, or carried into DES102 and now judged there (see below) |

| REV101 Finding 5 — readable states | r1 | **Delivered** at DES102 §14 |

| REV101 Finding 2 — cost of diversion | r1 | Closed under D013 as drafted (§4); the alternative is owner decision 3 |

| REV101 N12, N13, N14, N15 | r6 | Resolved in DES102 §4, §2, §10, §3 |

| REV101 N16 — tiers two and three | r6 | Delivered at §11; REV102-2 is its residue |

| REV101 N17 — split rule | r7 | Moot under D013; the alternative carries it |

| REV102-1 — tier-two gate open by default; pages crossed | REV102 r1 | **Open** |

| REV102-2 — tier-three key is an item gate | REV102 r1 | **Open** |

| REV102-3 — coil-lit vs panel-lit beacon invisible (Q32) | REV102 r1 | **Open** |

| REV102-4 — culvert joins one dock or two | REV102 r1 | **Open** |

| REV102-5 — withdrawal press bound unstated | REV102 r1 | **Open** |

- **Task:** REV102. **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r1 (this page), In review; REV101 r8 moved to the Archive verbatim.

- **Reviewed:** Design Document c4ad51 in full, diffed against d828a4; World and Mystery c6f059; Design 211106; Clarity 687696; External Critique 280e75; canonical pages unchanged since PMR001.

- **Changed decisions:** none by this role.

- **Evidence:** written comparison against Tasks criteria 1–10, PMR001 items 1–6 and the REV102 checklist; the §5 leak arithmetic and the §13 charge and routing traces re-derived from the document's own numbers; the tier-two default checked against §2/§3 timing. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.

- **Verdict:** revise — five issues, one bounded pass (REV102-1 needs both specialists), then ready as the owner packet. What works is listed above and should be preserved through the pass.

- **Remaining risk:** the specialist pages crossing a third time on the map; PM's routing ruling still open; the press-rate bound being tuned by nobody.

- **Next handoff:** lead and world designer — REV102-1 in one aligned revision each; lead — REV102-2 to -5 and the minor items in DES102 r3; PM — routing ruling, title's status. I re-review r3 when it exists and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** confirm that DES102 r3 with REV102-1 to -5 resolved is the artifact that goes to the owner as DES103, so the lead writes the pitch on top of it rather than a new document.