Hold the Flood — Design Review / Archive / REV106

Looking for one finding? Every one is summarised in a line on the Findings index.

Superseded revisions of the REV106 review, retained as they stood when superseded: r2 (786435) and r1 (as at 32433c). The current review is on Design Review; REV105 r3–r1 on the REV105 archive; REV104 r6–r1 on the REV104 archive; REV103 r5–r1 on the REV103 archive; REV102 r6–r1 on the REV102 archive; REV101 r8–r1 on the REV101 archive. Sections: REV106 r1.

REV106 r2 — retained verbatim (superseded by REV106 r3)

REV106 · r2 · 2026-09-07 11:01 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review — the review of the Visionary's replacement proposal, "The World Below" (Brief be6973, section "Visionary replacement proposal — The World Below"; the proposal appeared at d905c0, 10:36 UTC; its cascade section was rewritten at 7907ca, 10:50 UTC, after Equipment's chat message 32; be6973 is textually identical to 7907ca except its checkpoint line), against the owner's hierarchy (Brief be6973, "Game vision", the owner's answers of 10:28 UTC), as Tasks 783192 assigns (the row unchanged since 8d14db): "Evaluate the actual new proposal against the owner's hierarchy. Check that the first goal is understandable, later discoveries change context, builds express more than routing, and the refuge has people worth caring about. Separate mystery from bad UX and duration ambition from supported content." Read with it: the lead's DES106 r1 (Campaign fb24be, section 0) for the layer structure the proposal hands to Lead and Campaign; the World designer's WLD105 r29 (World 8d03e8, 10:52 UTC; amended with the Visionary's disposition at 4796cb, 10:57 UTC), the first contribution to the premise, which proposes the relief's fair chain and the cast's reasons; Colony 77e2e7 (the Visionary's cleanup of the refuge's opening); the contract 5322f4 (sections 4 and 5), Coil 80da75, Arc fc64bb, Utility Modules 4ffa18, Equipment bbe941 and the new Echo Relay page b96175 for the rack rules the proposal retains and the cascade's proposed specification; the project room through message 36. r1's two findings on the superseded vision are closed below at the revision that answered them. Format note: the wiki editor removed r1's provenance table and PM-report block at 32433c under the owner's instruction that discussion belongs in chat and articles to the design; this page keeps that form — findings with exact revisions, no status blocks. REV106 r1 is on the REV106 archive as it stood at 32433c (its full text at 615c4d); REV105 r3–r1 on the REV105 archive; REV104 on the REV104 archive; REV103 on the REV103 archive; REV102 on the REV102 archive; REV101 on the REV101 archive.

Verdict: revise — one paragraph the proposal still lacks, and one page's proposals it has not yet adopted; nothing here reopens a superseded scene

The premise answers the owner's hierarchy. The first goal is a named person's need said in plain words, with its rack cost visible before the player leaves; the revelation is not the harvest twist under any name; the cast is authored, and each of its three people is shown changed by the first return; the spectacular build is an interaction with a countercase, with routing in the supporting role the owner asked for, and since 7907ca its count is legal under the rack rules it retains; and the proposal separates its ambition from its content honestly ("it does not by itself prove the owner's hour ambitions"). That is what works, and it is most of what Tasks asked this role to check.

What still fails, in the order it matters now: REV106-4, the apparent ending, which neither the proposal nor the lead's structure places — the lead's layer one is a bracket by design, the Visionary's text is silent on which side of the first credits the lift falls, and the goal after the lift is a question, not a task — so the owner's first milestone has nothing under it in either document. REV106-3, the mechanism of the flagship discovery: as the Brief has it, an object decodes a picture and the player's act at the relief is unwritten; World 8d03e8 has since proposed the act (the old doors answer the song's order with light and tone before anything opens), the redundancy and the recovery, and the Visionary's disposition at World 4796cb retains that chain, which answers most of it once the Brief's own section says the same; what remains is that the upside-down reading is still the plate's rather than the player's. REV106-5, the cascade: its cell count is closed at 7907ca; what it does to a body — a "standard Arc chain" seeded from a landmark, under a contract in which the arc damages only by conducting the cutter's hits and reaches three bodies — is the open question the Echo Relay page b96175 now puts to Combat in the same words ("Combat must confirm damage, origin ordering and whether the cap is sufficient to earn the promised crowd clear"). Two smaller items follow (REV106-6, where the Flood is below the roof, which World leaves "open on purpose" as to origin and, at 4796cb, answers in one clause as to presence; REV106-7, one UX line, and a disagreement in the cast that World 8d03e8 supplies and 4796cb retains). Enjoyment, a newcomer's comprehension and the owner's reaction are not this role's to claim.

The proposal against the owner's hierarchy, criterion by criterion

The criteria are the ones this role pre-registered from the owner's answers and Tasks 8d14db, in the owner's order, each with its test and the proposal's own words.

Findings

REV106-4 — the apparent ending is unplaced, and the goal after the lift is a question, not a task (the strongest open failure). Where: Brief be6973, "Why these parts are one game" and "The later reinterpretation"; the owner's "Campaign ambition" table ("First credits… About 30 hours… a concrete initial goal can be fulfilled without exhausting the world"); DES106 r1 (Campaign fb24be) section 0.2 ("The credits roll when the given goal is fulfilled"; "the first ridiculous build is possible from found parts before the first credits"; on layer two, "the new goal must be as plain as the first one was") and section 0.6, which asks the critics "whether each layer's discovery kind is distinct from the others'"; World 8d03e8's handoff ("Lead and Campaign: the layered progression from the lift down"). Claim: the proposal supplies one first goal (the cell), one discovery (the plate and the lift), one spectacular build ("Much later, following the newly understood lift marks"), and says "Lead and Campaign still owe the content structure from apparent ending to real ending". Why it fails: the cell is a first-session goal, not the given goal whose fulfilment rolls the first credits; the lift does the work of all three of the owner's kinds at once — a clue reinterpreted, a world revealed larger, history found "while seeking another practical power source" — so the apparent ending has no discovery of its own (World 8d03e8 stages the reveal in four steps, relief, lift, landing, lights, but all four are the one descent); between the Bell House pulse and the cascade there is no build, while the lead wants a ridiculous build before the first credits; and after the lift the player's goal is "why did the ancestors seal these inhabited layers apart, and why did they leave ordinary families songs that could reopen them?" — a question about the past, where the owner requires the new goal to be as plain as the first. The plain goal is in the text ("distant human lights answer Hearth's signal": reach them) but is not stated as the goal. The three documents therefore do not meet at the owner's first milestone: the lead's layer one is a bracketed placeholder by design, the Visionary's text is silent on which side of the first credits the lift falls, and World hands the progression back to Lead and Campaign. Consequence: the 30-hour milestone has nothing under it in any document, and a reader cannot tell whether "The World Below" is the story of the first thirty hours or of the sixty after. Category: missing design detail; a contradiction between DES106 0.2 and the proposal on when the first ridiculous build arrives, if the lift is the layer boundary. Minimal change: one paragraph in the proposal naming the given goal that runs from the heat cell to the first credits (the cell warms one room for one night; what does Hearth need for a winter, and who says so), which side of the credits the lift is on, the layer-one build — or the statement that the Bell House pulse is that build and the lift is the credits — and the post-lift goal as a thing to do. Not hours; the proposal is right to refuse hours.

REV106-3 — on the Brief, the flagship discovery arrives by decoder and the player's act at the relief is unwritten; World 8d03e8 proposes most of the repair. Where: Brief be6973, "The later reinterpretation that opens the world". Claim: "the player later finds a glass survey plate. Held over copies of the crowned relief, it reveals lines that align only when the image is turned upside down… Using that reading at the first relief opens a lift behind the Bell House." Why it fails: the owner's first kind of discovery is "clues that were visible all along acquire meaning when the player gains context". The relief was visible all along; its meaning, though, is not gained from context but from lines that do not exist until an object is held over the picture — new information, not a new reading of old information. And "Using that reading at the first relief opens a lift" names no action, so on the Brief it cannot be told whether the reveal is something the player does or something the game does once the player holds the item. World 8d03e8 ("The clue that changes meaning: the crowned relief") proposes the rest of the chain: the relief in three places (the nursery door, the Bell House wall, "a third, half under water, on the sanctuary's flooded stair"); the song "sung and carved"; the wrong reading it invites; a safe test — "the hall's old doors answer the song's order with a light and a bell tone, one door at a time, before anything opens; a wrong order rings flat and does nothing" — and recovery, "Tavi copies the plate's reading onto the nursery relief the evening it is found"; and the rule that keeps the promise the Brief only makes ("History is allowed to matter without every story becoming a door code"), as amended at 4796cb: "Only a song with an unmistakably actionable sequence may be a key… Songs that preserve people are history… Do not set a song-to-key quota." That names the act, makes the experiment free, and makes the plate non-gating in the one sense that matters: "the doors answer to anyone who tries the order", so a player who knows the song can try it without the plate. What remains: the upside-down reading is still the plate's ("Held over the nursery copy, its lines align only when the image is upside down"), and the one route by context — a player who has seen the third relief half under water on a flooded stair and reads the seven dots as depths before any plate — is present in World's chain but not said to be meant. Consequence, as the Brief stands: the owner's first desired reaction rests on a key with a picture on it; with World's chain adopted, it rests on a song the player has known since childhood, tried on doors that answer, which is the owner's kind. Category: missing design detail on the Brief; answered in most of its parts by World 8d03e8's chain, which the Visionary's disposition at 4796cb retains ("retain the three relationship threads and fair clue chain"), so what is left is the Brief's own section and one sentence. Minimal change: carry the chain's act and recovery into the proposal's section; and one sentence saying whether the flooded-stair relief is meant to let a player reach the reading before the plate. Neither touches a superseded scene.

REV106-5 — the Choir Cascade: its count is closed at 7907ca; what a landmark-seeded chain does to a body is open. Where: Brief be6973, "Earned spectacular build — the Choir Cascade". As first written (d905c0, "Battery, Coil, Arc, Relay, Siphon and its fuel consume six of the eight rack cells… room for only two more"), the build failed the rules it retained: one battery for both Coil and Arc is illegal on Arc fc64bb ("it cannot share the coil's bank during combat") and is spent by the coil's discharge before the arc fires (contract 5322f4 section 4: "needs a full linked battery and spends it"); the Coil is two cells, not one (contract section 5; Coil 80da75); so the honest ledger was eight of eight with nothing free. Equipment's chat message 32 (10:50 UTC) found the same two defects and proposed the two-bank chassis; the Visionary adopted it at 7907ca the same minute this role's tally reached the same eight, and this page records the concurrence rather than a finding. The ledger now: Coil 2, its battery 1, Arc 1, its battery 1, Echo Relay 1 — six; "The remaining two rack cells are the choice… or fill both with the retained Siphon and one wet bundle… Using it consumes all eight cells"; and the Siphon is held to U5 as written ("the Siphon's existing salvage-for-three-charge rule", "does not gain a special Relay socket"), so the "overcharge" of d905c0 is gone. Closed at 7907ca. What remains: "each visible tuned bell or conductive landmark seeds one standard Arc chain; an organism can be hit only once. The resulting lightning lattice wipes ordinary Flood across the screen." Under contract section 4 a standard arc chain "damages by conducting the cutter's hits" and "conducts onward to at most three further bodies"; a chain seeded from a bell has no cutter hit to conduct, and with the cap kept, seven landmarks reach at most twenty-eight bodies, which is a wipe or not depending on a crowd size no page states for this premise. So the cascade either kills with electricity, which opens the clause DES106 0.4 prices ("Nothing in this game damages an organism with electricity"), or it stuns and sheds at scale, which the Bell House pulse already does in small; "wipes" reads as the first. Equipment's message 32 asks the Visionary to "confirm or revise the target grammar" and Combat to own the trigger; that is the right owner. The Visionary confirmed the grammar in message 36 and declined Equipment's Relay-only Siphon socket; Equipment's new page (Echo Relay b96175; Equipment bbe941) specifies the base effect as this role read it — "Each visible tuned landmark in that footprint becomes one Arc origin during that pulse and seeds one ordinary Arc chain. Apply the existing three-metre, line-of-sight hops and provisional three-additional-target cap" — and puts the open question to its owner in the same words: "Combat must confirm damage, origin ordering and whether the cap is sufficient to earn the promised crowd clear." It also still recommends the "Sacrifice-overdrive branch" the Visionary declined, for the Lead to accept or reject; that is a live disagreement between two owners, recorded here and not judged. Category: missing design detail, now assigned. Minimal change: none beyond Combat's answer; until it comes, the Brief's "wipes ordinary Flood across the screen" is a promise Combat has been asked to price, not a rule. Minor, in the first expedition: the choice "whether the remaining space carries a Battery and Coil, a medical Kit, or more capacity for optional salvage" is not exclusive on an eight-cell rack with two reserved — Battery and Coil take three of the six free cells and leave three for a Kit and bundles — unless Hearth issues one module per trip as the old refuge did (the ordinary-issue rule REV105 checked); and the expedition assumes a charged battery before any creature has been touched, where the retained charge rule is "once per organism, ten per battery", so Hearth must issue charge. Both are one sentence to state.

REV106-6 — where the Flood is below the roof. Where: Brief be6973, "The premise and its people" ("The Flood is the overwhelming mass of creatures that pours through submerged streets and chambers when water and noise disturb it") and "The later reinterpretation" ("an immense, mostly dry stack of halls, gardens and settlements below"; "distant human lights answer Hearth's signal"); World 8d03e8, "What the Flood is in this premise": "Where the Flood comes from is a discovery for the layers below, left open on purpose." Retained: "the overwhelming crowd". Why it fails: the proposal moves the game's second half into a mostly dry, inhabited world and neither page says whether the crowd is there; the cascade needs "wet ground", and the Flood as defined needs water. World's "left open on purpose" is a fair answer about the Flood's origin, which may be a discovery; it is not an answer about its presence, which is the game's pressure and not a mystery to keep. World's Senn row, as the Visionary amended it at 4796cb, is the nearest either page comes to saying: "much later, after Hearth chooses to answer the distant lights and reopen travel, a patient cannot be moved when creatures follow a returning lift… The initial lift reveal itself remains a moment of wonder, not an immediate punishment." So creatures do travel the lift, and the reveal is deliberately unpunished; where the crowd is in the halls below, between those two moments, is still unsaid. Consequence: the survivorlike half of the identity — the half REV106-1 found missing from the previous vision's illustration — is unaccounted for exactly where the owner's further sixty hours are meant to be. Category: missing design detail. Minimal change: one sentence on the Flood's presence below (not its origin). This role notes, as its own inference and not as the text: the proposal's central question, "why did the ancestors seal these inhabited layers apart", has an obvious candidate answer in the Flood itself, in which case opening the lift is the act that lets it move, and Hearth's people would have something to disagree about.

REV106-7 — two small things, one UX and one cast. (a) "before the next cold night": say whether it is a countdown the player sees or the reason for the trip; if a countdown, it is the first expedition's clock, and the owner's UX line requires it visible. Category: missing design detail — UX, not mystery. (b) "They speak, disagree, use what the player brings home and visibly change Hearth": on the Brief the disagreement is asserted and the three reactions shown all approve. World 8d03e8 supplies three, each authored: Mara "is wrong once, about the rooftops being all there is, and takes the plate's reading hard"; Tavi "wants to go down first, and the refuge has a reason to hold someone back or let them go"; Senn's patient who cannot be moved when creatures follow a returning lift (as amended at 4796cb). Answered on World 8d03e8 and retained by the Visionary at 4796cb ("retain the three relationship threads"), pending Colony's; no cast size, relationship subsystem or scene count is asked for, and the owner approved none (Colony 77e2e7 says the same: "Do not turn that permission into anonymous population bars, random personalities, upkeep padding or scheduled attacks before the cast and story reason earn them").

The lead's three questions to the critics (DES106 r1, section 0.6)

1. Can the first goal in 0.2 be stated plainly? 0.2's is a bracket by design; the Visionary's fills it and can be (criterion 1). The layer-two goal cannot yet: the proposal's is a why-question (REV106-4).
2. Is each layer's discovery kind distinct from the others'? In 0.2, yes by construction — the larger world ends layer one, the reinterpretation ends layer two, history is layer three. In the proposal, the one discovery is all three kinds in one beat, and World 8d03e8's four staged steps are that beat's parts (REV106-4).
3. Does 0.4 open builds beyond routing without reopening farming? Yes as written: "Charge once per organism… Keep" holds the guard; the screen-wipe's price is a whole rack's charge spent once, prepared at home, which 7907ca's two-bank chassis now matches; and the lit-wet-ground row makes the crowd come "because the trap was armed", which is attraction in the supporting role. One caution: "spends every linked battery on the rack at once" needs the link rule opened too — Coil 80da75 says a reserve bank "does not link in parallel", so under the current rules "every linked battery" is one per module, which is what 7907ca spends.

REV106-1 and -2, closed at Brief 6210ae (before supersession)

Both closures are of text the owner has since superseded (Brief be6973, "Previous vision — superseded by owner direction"); they are recorded so the Findings index is true, not as claims about the replacement.

Paused by the redirection — not closed, not to be polished

• REV104-17, the Exchange's distances (the plant 25 m from b1 against the Carrier's 12 m acquisition; the bank against the landing at 7:00). PM's chat #18 adds that the Exchange's §2/§3 still say two clutches where §6 says three, its §8 leaves one engaged after an interrupted swap, and its reel text still says wet points. Tasks: "pause polishing… Exchange encounter accounting… until the Visionary identifies which systems and scenes survive." The proposal retires "the one-road refuge illustration" and keeps "authored revisits" only where a retained scene earns them; the Exchange's survival is not yet named either way.
• REV105's one sentence on the later return's carrying decision; the Tram sequence itself is labelled "Superseded premise" on Campaign fb24be.
• The support-assembly contest (Colony 0e08c0; the Visionary's judgment at Brief 6d869e): retired from active direction by the proposal ("the support-exclusivity contest do[es] not survive as active direction") and by Colony 77e2e7 ("support-assembly exclusivity… do not survive merely because they were previously integrated"); closed with it if PM records that.

On the chat room

The owner has directed team discussion to the hold-the-flood room, Tasks 8d14db says "Discuss objections in chat", and PM (chat #18) asked this role to move replies and submission notices there. This role reads the room each check (through message 36 at this revision: the Visionary's submission #30 and Colony cleanup #31; Equipment's cascade correction #32; World's #33–#35; the Visionary's acceptance of the correction and refusal of the Siphon socket, #36). It does not post, because its operator has not instructed it to and a wiki or chat text cannot grant that; findings stay on this page with their exact revisions, which is what the room's own rule asks for ("keep concise current findings on your review page").

Finding index — where every finding lives

Superseded reviews: REV106 r1 · REV105 r3 and earlier on the REV105 archive · REV104 r6 and earlier on the REV104 archive · REV103 r5 and earlier on the REV103 archive · REV102 r6 and earlier on the REV102 archive · REV101 r8 and earlier on the REV101 archive.

Every finding raised in an archived round, one line each, is on the Findings index; the current round's findings arrive there when it is archived.

REV106 r1 — retained as it stood at 32433c (superseded by REV106 r2)

The wiki editor removed the round's provenance table and PM-report block at 32433c under the owner's 2026-09-07 instruction; the full text as authored is at revision 615c4d.

REV106 · r1 · 2026-09-07 09:55 UTC · Independent Design Critic · In review — the vision review Tasks (888ac1, PMU008) assigns this role: "does the described play deliver the stated identity, and what is its strongest contradiction?" — on the Visionary's submission at Brief 6d869e: the Game vision (the game, the theme as amended, the feeling, one story, the recurring player experience, what earns a place, the decision test), the concrete return "One return, in plain language", and the current vision pass. PMR009 §1 accepts the return "as the first concrete vision contribution" and asks the Critic and Reader to assess it now, each within their role. It is read against the scene it retells, Campaign r9 (93f482, DES105 r4) §3.2, and the design as it stands; the Reader's first-read account (Clarity 5e56f8) is cited, not repeated. REV105 is closed out below at Campaign r9 and the Exchange r4 (17dca3), with PMR009's qualifications of r3 owned. REV105 r3–r1 are on the REV105 archive; REV104 r6–r1 on the REV104 archive; REV103 r5–r1 on the REV103 archive; REV102 r6–r1 on the REV102 archive; REV101 r8–r1 on the REV101 archive; every revision is in page history (REV105 r3 265a09 · r2 42ad46 · r1 35cccf · REV104 r6 ce94e4 · … · REV101 r1 7ad187).

REV106 — the vision, and the play it describes

What the described play delivers

The vision is short, in plain words, and it commits to one loop: "prepare for an intended intervention; enter under crowd pressure; observe and test a cause; change a route, circuit or machine; bring home salvage and understanding; return because that understanding or a previous intervention makes a different approach worthwhile." Its decision test — "name the player's choice, its visible consequence, and the part of this experience it serves" — is the right instrument for this design, and the domain owners have already turned it on their own pages (Districts §2.0 withdrew the count's justification; Enemies §0A put the Heavy nearest the cut; the Siphon lost a packing rule). The theme's amendment settles tension one honestly: "Mastery can remove an immediate danger and earn an easy, profitable return. Responsibility lies in the lasting state you choose for the city." The one story is World's chain in three sentences, and Stop, Keep and Leave are named as "informed positions… not a morality score."

The return delivers, in order: preparation ("you close an upstream holding gate to delay its first delivery"), a cause observed and tested ("the warning lamp flashes and no crowd arrives: your understanding worked"), a machine changed ("you leave the tram's light at the summit so the next crowd climbs away from the road your refuge uses"), salvage and understanding home, and a lasting state. The Campaign's scene it retells closes on paper (REV105 r3), and the retelling is faithful to it. A reader who did not know the design could say what the surveyor did and why. That is the second half of the identity — understanding turned into a route, a machine set for home — delivered.

REV106-1 — The one expedition the vision describes has no crowd in it (the strongest contradiction)

• Where: the vision's first sentence: "Survive the Flood long enough to understand the machinery that moves it." The loop's second step: "enter under crowd pressure." The feeling: "Dread becomes practical confidence, then responsibility. The signature moment is: 'I understand why this place is dangerous. I can change it. What will that change cost somewhere else?'" The return: the first delivery is delayed before the trip; "you clear the enemy blocking the rail" — one body, before any surge, ten hits, no hit taken (Campaign r9); "the warning lamp flashes and no crowd arrives"; "you take a salvage bundle down the dry stairs, crank the gates open and go home before the next crowd."
• Why it fails: the vision's own loop has crowd pressure as its second step and dread as the feeling's first word, and the one expedition it offers the owner has neither: nothing arrives, nothing chases, nothing is survived. That is by design — it is the return that understanding makes easy, and the theme now says such a return is a payoff — but a vision that shows only the payoff shows an exploration game with a machine puzzle, not a survivorlike. The owner's requirement is a survivorlike in which the Flood is massed enemies; the Reader, reading the vision alone, could only infer that the Flood is the enemy crowd; a return in which no crowd appears will not correct that inference for the owner either. The signature moment's first clause, "I understand why this place is dangerous," is asserted in the return ("Earlier, you learned…") and never shown; its third, "What will that change cost somewhere else?", appears as "That keeps the lower gates unpowered, but you know their hand crank" — a cost to the surveyor's convenience, not a cost somewhere else. The cost somewhere else exists in the Campaign's scene (the next surge climbs toward the summit, which is where the head-works approach starts; the gates dark for every later visit) and is not in the vision's paragraph.
• Consequence: the owner rejected a deck that did not communicate one game; this is the page meant to replace it, and its one expedition omits half the game the owner asked for.
• Category: contradiction between the vision's stated loop and its own illustration (the vision's test applied to the vision).
• Minimal change: precede the return with the first visit to the same place, in the same plain language and the same length — the crowd following the lit tram up the incline twenty metres behind, the heavy stopping the tram with the crowd closing, three hits and the kit, the lamp put out so the crowd spreads where it stands, the crank home past a spread yard at one hit (all on Campaign r9 §3.2, first visit) — so that the two paragraphs together are dread, then confidence, then responsibility; and end the return with the cost somewhere else, in one sentence: the next crowd climbs to the summit, which is the road the surveyor will need for the head-works, and the depot gates stay dark for every later visit.

REV106-2 — The return's one equipment choice fails the vision's own equipment test as written

• Where: the return: "If you choose to stay for another observation, you can sacrifice that bundle to extend a decoy lamp's fuel instead." The vision's table, equipment: "Change or cut when: an item is only a bigger number, a disguised key, or sorting work with no consequential choice." The current vision pass: "The meaningful sacrifice is salvage for power, not where the bundle lands." PMR009 §3: "Five charge already buys fifty seconds; conversion buys thirty more, not permission to finish the trip"; Campaign r9: "That is optional margin, not a necessity and not the discovery that changes this route."
• Why it fails: the vision is right that salvage-for-power is a meaningful sacrifice in principle, and the lead has said where it is one (the head-works, where no surge will supply charge). In the return the vision chose to illustrate it, the sacrifice buys thirty seconds of margin on a crossing the heavy's own fuel already covers, for a player who has already read the cadence elsewhere. Named by the vision's test: the choice is "bundle or margin", the visible consequence is "nothing, unless the crank is blocked", and the part of the experience it serves is not one the return needs. The illustration undersells the vision's best equipment idea by showing it where it does no work.
• Category: the vision's test applied to its example; not a rule defect (the arithmetic is the lead's and PM's, already closed).
• Minimal change: either drop the sentence from the return, or say what it is for — the player who has not read the drums and wants the cadence confirmed before the head-works — and show the sacrifice doing work in the pass the vision has promised next ("test the equipment catalogue against distinct interventions").

Minor

• The Flood, at first use. "Survive the Flood" opens the vision; that the Flood is the mass of creatures is stated only in the mandate paragraph and inferred by the Reader. PMR009 §1 and the Reader have both asked for it in the first sentence; this role agrees and adds nothing.
• Two plain names for two beacons. The return says "the warning lamp flashes" for the yard beacon's dispatch flash and "a decoy lamp" for the portable beacon. They are translations, not disguises, and they are better words for the owner than the pages' — but the pages use "beacon" for both, and the vision's own Mystery row says to keep "genuinely different causes… distinguishable." One clause tying each plain name to the page's word, once, keeps the owner and the team reading the same objects.
• "Keeping a refuge alive" versus "the refuge's consequences are mostly conveyed by boards." The vision's first sentence makes the refuge the object of the game; its own current pass says caring for it "needs a concrete treatment" and PMR009 assigns that next (follow the intervention home). Recorded, not raised: the Visionary has named it first.

Verdict on the vision — revise: one expedition to add before the one shown, one sentence to end it, one equipment sentence to justify or drop

The identity is stated well enough to be tested, the test is the right one, and the return delivers the understanding-and-responsibility half of it faithfully. It does not deliver the survival half, because the expedition chosen to show the game is the one in which the Flood never arrives. That is the strongest contradiction, and it is repairable with two paragraphs that already exist on the Campaign page. No claim about enjoyment, comprehension by a newcomer, or the owner's reaction is made or could be; the Reader's account is the nearest thing to that and is cited above.

REV105 — closed out at Campaign r9 and the Exchange r4

PMR009's qualifications of r3, owned. (1) r3 called the changed return's three builds "real choices" on what each cost and did not ask what the featured coil plan bought for its stated objective; X37 asked, and the answer was nothing — a plan that fights for charge and discards it at the dock. (2) r3 accepted the berth alternative's rack (beacon, battery, kit) against the six-cell cap and did not check the ordinary-issue rule with the assembly on the berth — one known module plus the default battery — which Colony and Equipment did; two modules were issued. Both are corrected at r9 and both are this role's misses.

Finding index — where every finding lives

Superseded reviews: REV105 r3 · r2 · r1 · REV104 r6 and earlier on the REV104 archive · REV103 r5 and earlier on the REV103 archive · REV102 r6 and earlier on the REV102 archive · REV101 r8 and earlier on the REV101 archive.

Every finding raised in an archived round, one line each, is on the Findings index; the current round's findings arrive there when it is archived.

517 words of submission status, provenance and handoff were removed from this page on 2026-09-07 by the wiki editor, under the owner's instruction that discussion belongs in chat and articles belong to the design. Sections removed: What was reviewed, PM report — REV106 r1. Nothing is lost — the full text is at revision 615c4d and in this page's history. Discussion continues in the hold-the-flood room.