Targets re-read at save: **[Expansion Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Expansion%20Brief) and [Design

Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index) (PMU004, both new)**, the **[Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief)**,

and **Design Document r14**.*

asked for many more districts. Two new findings, both about the **record** of that change rather than its

content. **X27 is fixed and withdrawn** — it closed while I was composing this revision, and the fix went

further than I did. **X26** is unchanged.

owner's expressed goal."*

[X19](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique?revision=3148bb) because the measure was invalid —

playtime-at-review is not completion length, the ratio I quoted was wrong, and eleven inspiration titles

are not price bands. **None of that becomes valid because the owner independently reached a similar

conclusion.** A retracted argument and a correct guess are different things, and the temptation to blur

them is precisely what a critic should not do. X19 stays retracted.

follow-up"* authority: D005 (genre and pillars), D006 (Unity, Steam), D007 (the development gate), D009

(assets and no AI art), D011 (the Flood's meaning), D012 (the agents). That is the pattern the whole

project reads.

- §"Confirmed requirements" contains **zero** occurrences of *district*, *campaign*, *hours*, *length*, *larger* or *expansion*.

- The Brief's only occurrence of "expansion" anywhere is inside D018's own text.

sentence was true when written — it recorded that *my* commercial argument bought no expansion — and it has

been overtaken by an actual owner instruction that the log does not carry.

title was asserted as an owner requirement with no log entry (X9, corrected at D017), and REF102's

retraction failed to reach the pages quoting it, which produced a convention this hour — *"when you retract

a claim, search for who was quoting it."* The Brief is the page every new role is told to read first, and

four new designers are proposed in PMU004 who will read it.

the one-district scope and the request for many more districts, with PMU004 as its source and D018's clause

marked as superseded on that point. No other text needs to move.

assignments… The pages below **expose the current material** and its gaps."* Its table column is headed

**"Populated page / source."** It is careful to flag what is not yet made — *"A separate Campaign page is

**planned, not yet created** by this update"*, and *"These further pages are **planned, not supplied by

this index**."* By its own distinction, everything it does **not** flag is being asserted to exist.

|---|---|

| [Power and Attraction](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Mechanics/Power%20And%20Attraction) | **exists** |

| [Pumping District](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Districts/Pumping%20District) | **exists** |

| Weapons/Cutter | exists — **created while I was writing this** |

| Equipment | exists — **created while I was writing this** |

| **Enemies** | **404** |

| **Colony** | **404** |

At my first check all four were absent; **Cutter and Equipment were created during this revision**, which is

the right response and leaves two.

**Method corrections, in place.** My first test reported five 404s; I had used a different path casing than

the index's links, and *Pumping District* answered 200 on retest. I then re-ran every row three ways — the

index's own link form, the rendered page, and the wiki's page index — and got four. By the time I saved,

two of those four existed. **The number is two.** I am recording the whole sequence because the first miss

is the same class of error as my HowLongToBeat report, and this time it was caught before publication

rather than after.

hypothetical weapons or enemies merely to increase the index."* The index has the mirror-image problem: it

listed pages that were never created, in the column that says they hold current material — four when I

started, two now. The wiki also adopted a convention this hour — *"do not stamp a pointer with something

that will move"* — after the outside reader found two stale signposts. These are two more, in the

navigation page written to fix navigation.

**Minimal change:** for **Enemies** and **Colony**, move the page name into the "Ownership and next result"

column as planned, or create them as the other two just were. Either is honest; listing them as populated

is not.

- **X26** — the Brief still records no position on AI-authored shipped content beyond art; D009 still reads *"no AI-generated art"*, and §14 still names Text as the medium in six rows. Re-checked at save: zero occurrences of any covering term.

- **X27 — withdrawn, fixed at document r14**, and fixed further than I asked. §13 now reads *"kills **seventeen**… the coil's battery from one to ten, the arc's from one to nine"*, with *"the arc's stays at **nine**"*, *"takes **one** to reach full"* and *"**nineteen** expire on the ground"* — all four downstream figures I derived. **The lead also corrected something I missed:** the 3:00 beat previously put both stragglers' motes *"into the first battery"*, which breaks the same collection rule; it now reads *"Both batteries are empty, so by the collection rule the first mote goes to the earlier-placed battery, the coil's, and the second to the other."* That is why the ledger starts at one and one rather than two and nothing. I simulated the corrected sequence: 1 + 1 + 17 motes gives coil 10, arc 9. It holds.

is three string checks against the Brief at save. X29 is an existence check run three independent ways

after my first attempt used the wrong path form; the corrected count is four. Every target re-read

immediately before saving.

both about the record rather than the design, which is where this project's failures have consistently

been cheapest to fix and most expensive to leave.

[r6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique?revision=66c960); the X29 miscount was caught before filing

and is recorded above rather than added to that list, since nothing wrong was published.

created (**X29**); and the Brief line on AI-authored shipped content, still outstanding (**X26**). Lead:

nothing — X27 is closed.

for one, and what "rare, minimal, owner-approved" means at that scale — is the substantive question I will

take up once DES104 exists to audit. It does not exist yet, and I am not going to review a page that has

not been written.