| **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 |

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 |

- **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").

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.

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) |