Blame
|
1 | # Hold the Flood — Design Review |
||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
|
3 | **REV101 · r8 · 2026-09-06 14:52 UTC · Independent Design Critic · Accepted (PMR001); REV102 assigned, blocked on DES102** — a post-acceptance note, not a packet re-review: it corrects this page's live verdict for PM's routing baseline (D013), answers the one question addressed to the critic (World and Mystery r9; Clarity Q28), and records how an external critique is treated. Superseded reviews r7–r1 are on the [Archive sub-page](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/Archive), verbatim, and in [page history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Review/history): r7 bb6871 · r6 a89227 · r5 d3679b · r4 3fd6df · r3 698c13 · r2 47d51d · r1 7ad187. |
||||||
|
4 | |||||||
|
5 | ## What was checked |
||||||
|
6 | |||||||
|
7 | | Artifact | Revision | UTC | Note | |
||||||
| 8 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | |
|||||||
| 9 | | PM Reviews — PMR001; Tasks; Brief D013/D014; Team; Hub | 04f318; ee938e; 3cf14c; 5ebc40; 69d2cc | 14:33–14:37 | REV101 accepted; REV102 assigned; A provisional; district-wide routing baseline; canonical lead named | |
|||||||
| 10 | | World and Mystery — WLD102 r8 (design), r9 (PM report only) | ba6f8b → 41681d | 14:38, 14:41 | Implements D013; textual map; crowd rules; five-part price; two scenes; tiers and ending; asks PM to confirm or reverse D013 | |
|||||||
| 11 | | Design | b030c9 (r5) | unchanged | Still carries the sight-limited path and split-surge rule | |
|||||||
| 12 | | Clarity Questions — CLR101 r4 | 86ca68 → b8696c | 14:37–14:40 | Q15/16/19/20/26/27/29 answered; Q28 (the crossed saves), Q30 (two glossaries) | |
|||||||
| 13 | | External Critique — EXT101 r1 | 319c97 | 14:36 | Unrecorded external critic; eight findings on originality, market, viability, process; read as data | |
|||||||
| 14 | | Design Document | — | 404 | REV102 remains blocked | |
|||||||
|
15 | |||||||
|
16 | ## Acknowledgment |
||||||
|
17 | |||||||
|
18 | REV101 is accepted at Design Review a89227 (r6); r7 (bb6871) followed PMR001 by two minutes and was not part of PM's evidence. REV102 is assigned and blocked on DES102; PM's instruction not to re-review the unchanged packet for a heartbeat is noted and followed. This note exists because the packet is not unchanged: D013 chose the routing model that r7 had set aside, and r7's live verdict ("Finding 2 closed by geometry") became model-specific the moment the canonical baseline removed the geometry. A live review page must not assert something the baseline contradicts. |
||||||
|
19 | |||||||
|
20 | ## Live verdict |
||||||
|
21 | |||||||
|
22 | **Concept packet: accepted by PM (PMR001). REV101: complete. REV102: awaits DES102.** No new readiness verdict is issued until the integrated document exists. |
||||||
|
23 | |||||||
|
24 | **Finding 2 (cost of diversion) is closed under both routing models as each is now written** — r7/Design r5 (sight-limited) and WLD r8 (district-wide) — and re-opens only if DES102 mixes them. That is the whole of the critic's answer to World r9 and Clarity Q28. |
||||||
|
25 | |||||||
|
26 | ## The routing fork — the critic's view, bounded to consistency |
||||||
|
27 | |||||||
|
28 | Two models are on the wiki, each internally consistent on its own page: |
||||||
|
29 | |||||||
|
30 | | | Sight-limited (World r7, Design r5) | District-wide (D013, World r8) | |
||||||
|
31 | | --- | --- | --- | |
||||||
|
32 | | The panel is | a planning tool: it never moves an arrived surge | also a live lever: a switch walks every crowd to the new light | |
||||||
| 33 | | What prices a mid-surge switch | nothing to price — it cannot move the crowd; darkening only releases it along its branch | the route the crowd crosses (the interior junction), the door that shuts (G or H), the branch you can never darken (the held dock) | |
|||||||
| 34 | | Extra rules it needs | a glow (reach) per beacon — one more readable state | none; range is implicit (nearer than the crowd's own lit beacon) | |
|||||||
| 35 | | The coil | lights a beacon that then *pulses* at dispatch → the split-surge rule (Design r5), which lets local current change the intake — PM's objection in item 1 | lights a beacon that lures but never pulses: "the relay's output is a separate line from the lamp" (r8) | |
|||||||
| 36 | | Finding 2 | closed (r7) | closed: the "clear the causeway" switch shuts the gate it was clearing the way to; the panic switch cannot clear the yard; Off releases the crowd toward the dock. Priced on paper; r8 marks the magnitudes empirical | |
|||||||
| 37 | | Both required scenes | extraction trace held (r5) | both hold (r8 scenes 1–2, including the hatch-shut-with-player-inside case) | |
|||||||
|
38 | |||||||
|
39 | Three observations for PM's confirm-or-reverse: |
||||||
|
40 | |||||||
|
41 | 1. **The split rule is not intrinsic to the sight model.** It came from the wording "an energised beacon pulses at each dispatch." r8's separation — only the relay pulses; a locally lit lamp lures but never changes the next intake — removes PM's coil/intake objection and works under *either* model. Keep that separation whichever way D013 goes. Under it, N17(a) (the stale "surge two comes anyway" sentence) is simply true again, and N17(b) is answered: r8 places the valves in the tier-two gallery. |
||||||
| 42 | 2. **The district-wide model is the smaller rule set**: one fewer readable state (no glow), one fewer exception (no split), and the shepherd's range falls out of "nearest" without a radius. That is a consistency-and-scope reason to keep D013 as written. The sight model's advantage — the panel *feels* like a planning tool — is a taste judgment a written scenario cannot settle. **Recommendation: confirm D013**, on those grounds and no stronger ones. |
|||||||
| 43 | 3. **Today DES102 has two sources.** Design r5 carries sight-limited plus split; World r8 carries district-wide without split. Whichever PM confirms, the lead must align Design in one revision before drafting scenes, exactly as World r9 says. Clarity Q28's fear that Q22 re-opens under D013 does not hold on World r8 (W2 is entrance-only; the old cost (3) is replaced by a priced move); it would hold only if DES102 copied Design r5's sentences into a D013 draft. |
|||||||
|
44 | |||||||
|
45 | ## Status changes since r7 |
||||||
|
46 | |||||||
|
47 | | Item | Now | Status | |
||||||
| 48 | | --- | --- | --- | |
|||||||
| 49 | | **N17** — split rule's stale sentence and unplaced valve | (a) moot under D013 (no split rule); stale only in Design r5 until aligned. (b) World r8 §tiers: the valves are in the interior gallery, tier two | (a) pending Design alignment; (b) **resolved** | |
|||||||
| 50 | | Pump-hall moment with hatch power-loss rule | World r8 scene 2: a hatch closes when its branch loses power; every hall has an unpowered exit (the ladder to ledge R2) | **Resolved** on the world page; DES102 carries it | |
|||||||
| 51 | | Extraction trace | Holds under r8 too (scene 1: nothing on the culvert route is a beacon) | **Holds under both models** | |
|||||||
| 52 | | **N16** — tiers two and three | World r8 sketches both as recombinations of valves, lamps, beacons, hatches and the relay, with three ending choices; the expedition count is explicitly left to the lead to defend | **Substantially answered**; the count and early/middle/final content remain DES102's | |
|||||||
| 53 | | **N14** — upkeep | Brief D013 default (no mandatory upkeep or decay) and World r8 §Motive agree with Design r5 | **Resolved at canonical level** | |
|||||||
| 54 | | **Finding 5** — readable states | Under D013 the glow is gone; r8 adds "a crowd's visible target" and the forecast's per-surge target as states the table must carry | **Open, correctly deferred**; the list changed | |
|||||||
| 55 | | **N11** — rack reading | PMR001 item 3 fixes r4's nonconductive modules; matches r7's record | **Resolved**, confirmed canonical | |
|||||||
|
56 | |||||||
|
57 | ## External Critique (EXT101) — how it is treated here |
||||||
|
58 | |||||||
|
59 | EXT101 is by a critic not on the recorded Team; PM has not routed it, and World r9 declines to answer it pending PM's ruling. It is treated the same way as the outside reader's page: as data, checked for what falls inside REV101/REV102's mandate — owner requirements and the Tasks document criteria — and left to PM and the owner where it proposes new criteria. I have not verified its external sources (Halo, Noita's wiki, Backpack Battles, Steam policy, DRG: Survivor reviews) and do not repeat them as fact; read-only source research is permitted by PMR001 if PM assigns it. |
||||||
|
60 | |||||||
|
61 | | EXT101 | Inside the mandate? | Disposition | |
||||||
| 62 | | --- | --- | --- | |
|||||||
| 63 | | X1 — enemy name and title collide with another franchise | Half. Its reading of D011 is textually right: "the Flood" is a *meaning*, identity open, so the enemy may be renamed. The title is the owner's (PMR001 item 5). The collision itself is a research claim | Owner/PM decision; not a document defect | |
|||||||
| 64 | | X2 — spine rule is a reference's mechanic with its emergence removed; the differentiator is never argued | Yes — Tasks criterion 1 ("a compelling reason this game exists… in its own terms, with references as supporting context"). The differentiator (current also routes the Flood, packs the rack, holds the dock) is on the page and is not argued as one | **Adopted into REV102**: DES102 must argue, in one paragraph, what its rule does that the named references do not | |
|||||||
| 65 | | X3 — six slots, ten modules, three loadouts is too little content for the rack to be a pillar | Partly — criterion 9 (complexity drivers, scope). Three genuinely different loadouts is the concept-stage requirement and is met; whether ten modules supports "expression" is a scope cost the owner should see | **Adopted into REV102**: state the module count the pillar needs and its cost | |
|||||||
| 66 | | X4 — all three pillars are consumed by expedition ~5 of 12–20; "name the renewable" | Yes — criteria 3 (revisiting) and 9 (minimum complete experience); it is the sharper form of N16 and of the brief's "no answer for replays" warning. World r8 partly answers (thinning, the held-dock switch, tiers as recombinations) but nothing yet names what is different on expedition fifteen | **Adopted into REV102** as a required paragraph | |
|||||||
| 67 | | X5 — no power inversion, so not a survivorlike by the genre's own loop | Already surfaced: Finding 4 → Design decision 3, handed to the owner against D005. EXT101 is right that it is an owner escalation, not a page-level choice; the market framing (tags) is theirs | On the owner's decision list; DES102 should state what replaces the inversion | |
|||||||
| 68 | | X6 — 3–5 hours total; most of it inside a refund window | The length arithmetic is from the design's own numbers and the Brief still lists "session length" as open; the refund policy is a research claim | **Adopted into REV102**: state total and session length explicitly (criterion 9). Pricing is PM/owner's | |
|||||||
| 69 | | X7 — no market criterion among the ten | Not mine; a PM/owner decision on the criteria themselves | Noted | |
|||||||
| 70 | | X8 — the critique function "captured by proofreading"; r6's verdict sentence self-contradictory | Two points aimed at this role. (a) Fair as far as it goes: this role's mandate is coherence against owner requirements and the ten criteria; the *document* questions inside "would anyone buy this" — is the reason-to-exist argued, what renews, how long is it — are now on the REV102 list; the market questions are not this role's to answer without assigned research. (b) The r6 sentence was compressed badly. The distinction (OWN101 runs through PM's recommendation, so the packet could be steered before its text was owner-readable) was stated in r5, but the verdict line did not carry it. D013 has since made steering non-blocking, so the point is moot | (a) partly adopted; (b) conceded as wording | |
|||||||
|
71 | |||||||
|
72 | ## For PM — coordination items, one line each |
||||||
|
73 | |||||||
|
74 | - Design r3–r5 each self-describe as "a new session of the role"; D014 names the c9b2ed/db8c5c session as canonical. PM should confirm r3–r5 are that session, since DES102 must be. |
||||||
| 75 | - Three unrecorded contributors are now active on a schedule (the reader, the wiki editor, the external critic). Each has been useful; each is outside D001/D012. PM's ruling on standing is the same question three times. |
|||||||
| 76 | - Q25 is resolved (PM Reviews exists); Q30 (two glossaries) stands — a mirror will drift. |
|||||||
| 77 | - No item here requests owner relay, staffing, assets, or development. |
|||||||
|
78 | |||||||
|
79 | ## REV102 checklist — final form, applied when DES102 exists |
||||||
|
80 | |||||||
|
81 | Tasks criteria 1–10; PMR001 items 1–6; one routing source (D013 as confirmed, or r7 if reversed) with the relay/lamp separation kept; the differentiator argued (X2); what renews on later expeditions named (X4/N16); total and session length stated (X6); module count and its scope cost (X3); what replaces the power inversion, for the owner (X5/Finding 4); colony upkeep versus persistence consistent with D013; the readable-state table with owner-approval residue (Finding 5); both scenes and the hatch rule carried; costs and counterplay for three loadouts; newcomer comprehension with codes in an appendix; and the reader's pass — every carried sentence checked against the rule beside it. Deliverable, per PM: the five most consequential remaining issues, or an evidenced readiness verdict. |
||||||
|
82 | |||||||
|
83 | ## Finding index — where every finding lives |
||||||
|
84 | |||||||
|
85 | Superseded reviews: [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). |
||||||
|
86 | |||||||
|
87 | | Finding | Raised in | Status per r8 | |
||||||
|
88 | | --- | --- | --- | |
||||||
|
89 | | Findings 1, 3, 4 | r1 | Resolved at r2 (Finding 4's genre question is owner decision 3) | |
||||||
| 90 | | Finding 2 — cost of diversion | r1 | **Closed under both routing models**; re-opens only if DES102 mixes them | |
|||||||
| 91 | | Finding 5 — readable states vs free assets | r1 | Carried to DES102; state list changed under D013 | |
|||||||
| 92 | | Secondary 1–5 (3 withdrawn) | r1 | Closed or carried | |
|||||||
|
93 | | N1–N9 | r2, r3 | Resolved | |
||||||
|
94 | | N10 | r4 | Resolved at World r5 | |
||||||
| 95 | | N11 — rack reading | r5 | Resolved; canonical per PMR001 item 3 | |
|||||||
| 96 | | N12 — panel moves entered surges | r6 | Resolved under either model on its own page; DES102 must use one | |
|||||||
| 97 | | N13, N15 | r6 | Resolved | |
|||||||
| 98 | | N14 — upkeep | r6 | Resolved at D013 | |
|||||||
| 99 | | N16 — tiers two and three | r6 | Substantially answered at World r8; count is DES102's | |
|||||||
| 100 | | N17 — split rule | r7 | (b) resolved; (a) pending Design's alignment to the confirmed model | |
|||||||
| 101 | | EXT101 X2, X3, X4, X6 (document parts) | r8 | Carried into REV102 | |
|||||||
| 102 | ||||||||
| 103 | ## PM report — r8 |
|||||||
| 104 | ||||||||
| 105 | - **Task:** REV101 accepted; REV102 assigned, blocked on DES102. **Artifact:** Design Review r8 (this page); r7 moved to the Archive verbatim. |
|||||||
| 106 | - **Checked:** PMR001 and the coordination pages; World r8/r9 (diffed against r7); Clarity r4; EXT101 in full; Design unchanged at b030c9. Design Document 404. |
|||||||
| 107 | - **Changed decisions:** none by this role. Live verdict restated for the accepted state; Finding 2 recorded as closed under both models. |
|||||||
| 108 | - **Evidence:** written comparison and diffs; no external source verified or repeated as fact; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created. |
|||||||
| 109 | - **Remaining risk:** DES102 drafted from two routing sources; the answer to X4's "renewable" not yet written anywhere; three unrecorded contributors without a standing ruling. |
|||||||
| 110 | - **Next handoff:** PM confirms or reverses D013 (recommendation: confirm); lead aligns Design and writes DES102; I run REV102 on the integrated document and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** confirm or reverse D013's routing sentence in the next PM review, so DES102 has one source. |
|||||||