| PM Reviews — PMU002 checkpoint | a2beab | 15:22 | "Do not inherit a critic verdict written against a different revision"; next full PM review still due |

| World and Mystery — WLD102 r14 | e2d4b4 | 15:27 | PMU002 applied; no rule or chain change |

| External Critique — EXT102 (r6) | 3148bb | 15:28 | A teammate's critique of the same r7 under criterion 11; its two internal-consistency findings (X21, X22) verified independently below |

| Brief 28fb1c, Tasks 137028, Team cbf8d7 | unchanged | | |

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

| REV102-7 — cable pair named twice | Appendix A: one entry, "Power cable / signal cable: the two lines the panel switches…"; the body still uses both "line" and "cable", which the entry now covers | **Resolved** |

| REV102-8 — unsupported playtime inference | §17 decision 4: the measures are named, their limits stated ("playtime at review is not completion length, so these figures cannot set a minimum length… the price of eleven chosen examples is not a rule"), the prediction labelled as one | **Resolved** |

| REV102-9 — "nine rounds… certifies" | Owner page: "An independent critic has reviewed this document and found it consistent, honest about its unknowns, and readable cold; that is not evidence that it is fun, balanced or saleable, and nothing here claims so" | **Resolved** — accurate as of r5; after this review, accurate again once REV102-10 to -13 are fixed |

- **Where:** owner page ("whose payoff moment… exists as a spend of that charge through the arc module, which this revision moves into the minimum scope"); §6 ("that is why the arc is in the minimum and not on a menu"); §17 ("The recommendation is the game described in this document with the arc module in its minimum scope"). **Versus** §5's three drawn loadouts (electrician `C C B / S S I`, hauler, shepherd — none carries an A), §12 and §13 (neither scene uses it), §14's table (no row for its chaining cue), and §5's link rule ("you draw one link from each battery to the one module it powers"; repacking, and so relinking, "only in shelters", §2).

- **Why it fails:** under the document's own rules the arc needs a battery of its own. An electrician who wants the mowing moment carries coil, insulation, two batteries and the arc — six slots, no cargo — or relinks a single battery from coil to arc at a shelter, which the scenes never show. That is a real and interesting cost, and it is the cost of the one feature the recommendation depends on. Criterion 4 asks for builds with costs and counterplay; criterion 7 asks that the central systems appear in the written expeditions. The document's own standard for the coil — drawn, priced, played twice — is not met for the module it now says makes the game its genre.

- **Consequence:** the owner is asked to approve a survivorlike on the strength of a payoff moment that exists only as a paragraph.

- **Category:** missing design detail; criterion 4 and 7.

- **Minimal change:** one drawn loadout with the arc and its link (and what it gives up); one row in §14 (current jumping body to body — the live cue, engine-drawn); and a few lines in §13 where the player spends a harvested battery through the arc into the second surge at the hall door. No new rule is needed.

- **Where:** §6: "draining the battery over about twenty seconds… bounded by the finite-charge rule so it cannot be sustained." §3: "About three hits kill one organism, at roughly two hits a second." §5: "A kill mote is one unit"; a battery holds ten.

- **Why it fails:** ten units over twenty seconds is half a unit a second of drain; the cutter alone kills two thirds of an organism a second, a mote each, before the arc's chaining multiplies kills. On the document's numbers the arc funds itself while there are organisms to kill and motes underfoot. What actually bounds it is that each organism sheds once per expedition and that motes must be walked over while fighting — real bounds, and different ones. As written, the sentence that reassures the owner the payoff "cannot be sustained" is contradicted by the page before it.

- **Category:** contradiction (claim versus stated rates); criterion 10.

- **Minimal change:** state the true bound ("bounded by the number of organisms that have not yet shed this expedition, and by having to pick up motes inside the crowd; charge alone does not bound it"), or change the drain rate and say so. Numbers stay proposals either way; the claim must match them.

- **Where:** §6: "A surge of forty stunned in water yields four large motes, twenty units, **two full batteries**… So the electrician's loop, harvest a surge to fund the next discharge, **pays**…" §5: a discharge spends the whole battery; the electrician's rack `C C B / S S I` holds one battery, ten units. §13 at 7:50: discharge, harvest, "battery full again" — break-even.

- **Why it fails:** with one battery the loop returns exactly what it spent, and the other ten units fade uncollected. It pays only with two batteries — `C C B / B S I` — at the price of one bundle of cargo against the hauler's six. The document's own scene shows the break-even case and its own prose claims the profitable one.

- **Consequence:** small in itself, and a good tension the document does not know it has: the electrician's profit is a slot decision, which is exactly what the rack is for.

- **Category:** contradiction (internal); criterion 4.

- **Minimal change:** in §6, "with one battery the harvest refills what the discharge spent; with two, it pays" — and let the electrician's counterplay note say so.

- **Why it fails:** a rule sentence says what the numbers and the scenes deny. The sentence is inherited from the concept packet, written before units existed.

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

- **Minimal change:** "walking over one adds its charge to a battery in your rack."

- **§17 is one experience with departures priced**, which is what PMU002 asked for and what an owner can actually decide against.

- **The commercial text now says what the data can carry** and nothing more; Steam's terms are cited as a fact about the store; reviewer playtime is named as a different quantity. That is criterion 10 applied to criterion 11.

- **Three PMU002 rulings are applied where they bite** (D016 in §4, D017 in §11 and decision 7, D018 throughout), and r7 fixed three findings it had not yet read, because the reader, the editor, the external critic and this role were converging on the same sentences.

| **REV102-10** — "fills a battery" vs one unit | REV102 r5 (EXT X21) | **Open** |

| **REV102-11** — electrician loop "pays" with one battery | REV102 r5 (EXT X22) | **Open** |

| **REV102-12** — the arc's bound contradicts its rates | REV102 r5 (EXT X22) | **Open** |

| **REV102-13** — the arc: undrawn, unplayed, cost unstated | REV102 r5 | **Open** — priority |

- **Task:** REV102 on DES103 r1 (document r7); if PM prefers a REV103 identifier for critique of the owner-facing document, the content stands under either. **Artifact:** Design Review, REV102 r5 (this page); r4 moved to the REV102 archive verbatim.

- **Reviewed:** Design Document 44984c in full, diffed against 12779d; PM Reviews a2beab; World and Mystery e2d4b4; External Critique 3148bb (X21, X22 verified against r7's text, not adopted on trust).

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

- **Evidence:** the diff; the arc traced through §5's link rule, the three drawn racks, both scenes and §14; the charge arithmetic re-run from §3, §5 and §6's stated numbers. No players, sessions, scores or asset checks; nothing built, prototyped, tested or created; no external source verified or repeated as fact.

- **Verdict:** revise — one bounded pass on the arc (REV102-13, -12, -11) and one word (REV102-10); then, on the evidence of what r7 already does, the owner packet.

- **Remaining risk:** the recommended experience's payoff moment being approved as a paragraph; nothing else.

- **Next handoff:** lead — DES103 r2 with REV102-10 to -13; PM — the full review PMU002 says is due, on the actual DES103 r2; EXT102's criterion-11 line is PM's to dispose. I review DES103 r2 when it exists and post nothing before then except a PM correction. **One exact PM request:** treat DES103 r2 with REV102-10 to -13 resolved as the artifact for the owner, and dispose of EXT102 alongside it so the lead answers both in one revision.