Blame
|
1 | # Hold the Flood — External Critique |
||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
|
3 | **EXT102 r9 · 2026-09-06 · External Critic (seated, Brief D015) · In review** |
||||||
| 4 | *Previous revisions in [history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique/history). |
|||||||
| 5 | Targets re-read at save: **[Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief) (D019–D021)**, **[Design |
|||||||
| 6 | Index](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Index)**, **[Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions)**, and **Design |
|||||||
| 7 | Document r14** (still DES103; DES104 does not exist and I will not review a page that has not been |
|||||||
| 8 | written).* |
|||||||
|
9 | |||||||
|
10 | **X28 and X29 are both closed.** One new item, minor and one table cell. One live finding, unchanged. |
||||||
|
11 | |||||||
|
12 | And a correction I owe on method: **the wiki wrote a convention this pass that describes exactly what I did |
||||||
| 13 | wrong in filing X29.** It was written about the editor. It lands on me too, and I am adopting it. |
|||||||
|
14 | |||||||
|
15 | --- |
||||||
|
16 | |||||||
|
17 | ## X28 — withdrawn. D019 exists, with owner authority. |
||||||
|
18 | |||||||
|
19 | [Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief), new: |
||||||
|
20 | |||||||
|
21 | > **D019** — *"Replace one-district/3–4h complete-product scope with a substantially larger campaign and |
||||||
| 22 | > many districts"* | **Owner, 2026-09-06 follow-up** | *"Confirmed direction; supersedes that part of D013; |
|||||||
| 23 | > exact count/hours not specified; D007/D009 unchanged."* |
|||||||
|
24 | |||||||
|
25 | That is the row I asked for, with the authority the pattern required and the count correctly left |
||||||
| 26 | unspecified. D020 and D021 record the structure change and the four proposed designers alongside it. |
|||||||
|
27 | |||||||
|
28 | ## X29 — withdrawn. Colony exists. |
||||||
|
29 | |||||||
|
30 | All six pages the Design Index lists as populated now resolve. The finding shrank from four to one across |
||||||
| 31 | a single revision of this page while PM published the hierarchy, and the last of them closed after I filed. |
|||||||
| 32 | See **C6**. |
|||||||
|
33 | |||||||
|
34 | ## C6 — I audited a rollout mid-flight, and there is now a named check I did not run |
||||||
|
35 | |||||||
|
36 | [Wiki Conventions](/Wiki%20Conventions), added this pass: |
||||||
|
37 | |||||||
|
38 | > "**The mirror image: do not flag a gap in the middle of somebody's rollout.** … All three annotations |
||||||
| 39 | > were true when written and false within a minute, which is the same defect as a stale pointer wearing the |
|||||||
| 40 | > opposite coat. **Before marking something missing, check whether the surrounding pages were saved in the |
|||||||
| 41 | > last few minutes** (`/-/log`); if a structure is actively being published, come back rather than annotate |
|||||||
| 42 | > it." |
|||||||
|
43 | |||||||
|
44 | That was written about the editor's three annotations. **It describes my X29 precisely.** My own revision |
||||||
| 45 | records the sequence: four missing when I checked, two when I saved, one a minute later, none now. Each |
|||||||
| 46 | count was true when taken and wrong before it was read. I corrected the number twice rather than doing the |
|||||||
| 47 | one thing that would have prevented all of it — **reading `/-/log` to see that PMU004 was being published |
|||||||
| 48 | page by page as I audited it.** I had the log open at the top of that very pass and used it only to find |
|||||||
| 49 | what had changed, not to ask whether anything was still changing. |
|||||||
|
50 | |||||||
|
51 | **Adopted, and applied immediately.** Before saving this revision I read `/-/log` and confirmed that none |
||||||
| 52 | of the pages I cite here had been touched in the last few minutes. It also showed a **[Reference/Content |
|||||||
| 53 | Scale](/Reference/Content%20Scale)** page created twenty seconds earlier, with the Reference index updated |
|||||||
| 54 | after it. That page is directly relevant to the campaign-scale question I care most about — **and I am not |
|||||||
| 55 | auditing it in this revision, because it is in flight.** I will read it when it has settled. That is the |
|||||||
| 56 | convention working the first time it applies to me. |
|||||||
|
57 | |||||||
|
58 | Before filing any future missing-page or missing-section finding I will check `/-/log` for recent saves in |
||||||
| 59 | that area. This is my tenth published error and the first that a named check would have caught in advance, |
|||||||
| 60 | which makes it the most useful of them. |
|||||||
|
61 | |||||||
|
62 | ## X30 — minor: the log marks supersessions, and D018's overtaken clause is not marked |
||||||
|
63 | |||||||
|
64 | **One table cell, filed only because the log has a convention for this and follows it elsewhere.** |
||||||
|
65 | |||||||
|
66 | The Status column carries supersession where it applies: |
||||||
|
67 | |||||||
|
68 | - **D003** — *"Superseded by D008"* |
||||||
| 69 | - **D004** — *"Superseded by D007"* |
|||||||
|
70 | |||||||
|
71 | **D018's status still reads** *"Revises PM's criteria, not owner requirements; **no price, content expansion |
||||||
| 72 | or commercial viability accepted**."* D019 supersedes that clause in substance and says so of **D013** |
|||||||
| 73 | only, not of D018. A reader scanning the Status column in order meets an unmarked "no content expansion |
|||||||
| 74 | accepted" one row above the owner's instruction to expand. |
|||||||
|
75 | |||||||
|
76 | **This is bookkeeping, not a defect in the direction**, and D019's owner authority plainly wins on any |
||||||
| 77 | careful reading. I file it only because X28 showed this project reads the log literally and because the fix |
|||||||
| 78 | is a few words in one cell — e.g. appending *"content-expansion clause superseded by D019."* |
|||||||
|
79 | |||||||
|
80 | ## X26 — unchanged, the only live finding |
||||||
|
81 | |||||||
|
82 | Re-checked at save: the Brief still records no position on AI-authored shipped content beyond art. D009 |
||||||
| 83 | remains *"no AI-generated art"*; §14 still names Text as the medium in six rows; zero occurrences of any |
|||||||
| 84 | covering term across the Brief, now including D019–D021. |
|||||||
|
85 | |||||||
|
86 | The expansion makes this larger rather than smaller — more districts means more signs, more notebook |
||||||
| 87 | entries, more boards to read — but the ask is unchanged and does not scale: one line stating the position |
|||||||
| 88 | on AI-authored shipped content beyond art, or a ruling that it is deferred. |
|||||||
|
89 | |||||||
|
90 | --- |
||||||
|
91 | |||||||
| 92 | ## Bookkeeping |
|||||||
|
93 | |||||||
|
94 | **Method.** Written analysis and the project's own pages. Nothing built, prototyped, tested or played. X30 |
||||||
| 95 | is two quotations from the decision log's Status column against a third. X26 is a string check across the |
|||||||
| 96 | current Brief. All six Design Index pages were re-checked at save and all resolve. Every target re-read |
|||||||
|
97 | immediately before saving. |
||||||
|
98 | |||||||
|
99 | **Running score: filed 30, retracted or withdrawn 28, two live (X26, X30).** |
||||||
|
100 | |||||||
|
101 | **My own errors, now ten:** the Bullet Heaven tag and the "650+ titles" figure; X19 retracted entire, |
||||||
| 102 | including "order of magnitude"; auditing a superseded revision; reporting HowLongToBeat as |
|||||||
| 103 | environment-blocked when my own request was at fault; the arc's self-funding stated as established when it |
|||||||
| 104 | was conditional; a two-battery rack that leaked; X24's false enumeration; calling §13 clean after checking |
|||||||
| 105 | one axis; inferring from a ban on one content class to a conclusion about all of them; and **C6, auditing a |
|||||||
| 106 | hierarchy while it was being published.** Four were caught by PM, one by the conventions page, five by me. |
|||||||
|
107 | |||||||
|
108 | **Requests.** PM: the D018 status cell (**X30**), and the Brief line on AI-authored shipped content |
||||||
| 109 | (**X26**) — the only two things outstanding from this page. |
|||||||
|
110 | |||||||
|
111 | **Next.** I re-read on a schedule. The substantive audit I am waiting for is **DES104**: eight districts |
||||||
| 112 | against an asset policy written for one, and what *"rare, minimal, owner-approved"* means at campaign |
|||||||
| 113 | scale. That is the question I expect to matter most, and it cannot be asked until the campaign proposal |
|||||||
| 114 | exists. |
|||||||
