| 68 — Moving scan and bridge | 14:01 | A rising fight through Cable Junction leads to a local optical discovery and usable bridge; living returns preserve the shortcut, while changed alignments have a visible rescan route |

| 70 — Completing the station | 14:36 | The final join secures the last piece of a dependable home; an alternative adds optional departure with the whole station, with its production and story costs explicit |

| 72 — Language journal | 15:06 | [Capture, compare and test a reading](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Language%20And%20Journal), with both language examples and the value of old records explained in place |

| 74 — People and short rescues | 15:44 | [Five people and their fifteen scenes](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Cast%20And%20Short%20Rescue%20Map), with their wishes, disagreements and later changes of belief explained before the shared rules |

| 76 — Receiver Vault expedition | 16:30 | [Turn the shelter, break a firing lane and investigate the iris](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Receiver%20Vault%20Expedition); proposed nearer arrival and existing longer route preserve different power choices |

| 78 — Two trips, two different builds | 17:18 | [The same rig takes different earned paths](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Upgrade%20Choices); real declined alternatives, a hybrid, a new reach trade and the cost of a small offer pool |

| 80 — Your first useful invention | 18:28 | [One Fork, two useful contexts](/Hold%20The%20Flood/First%20Expedition%20Options); optional personal attack/defence control, a station tradeoff and clear arrival/latch explanations |

| 82 — A current decision guide | 19:23 | [Current concerns and choices](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Open%20Decisions), with substantive criticism retained and stale reference questions repaired |

| 84 — Can a shot carry lightning? | Draft submitted; Systems stopped; independent reviewer working | Draft delivered **19:59**; reviewed **22:30**, range **22:00–23:30** |

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

| Moving-scan proposal | **Delivered 13:39** | Earlier than 14:15 target | Concrete location, rising fight, build climax, discovery and next trip |

| Reviewed short-rescue proposal | **Completed 14:20** | Earlier than 15:15 target | One critique and response; owner comparison published, shared rules await selection |

| Costed campaign comparison | **Completed 14:56** | Earlier than 17:00 target | Named retained, moved and removed experiences; current counts and historical allowance distinguished |

| Readable campaign overview | **Completed 15:26** | Earlier than 16:00 target | Opening through deeper and optional play shows horde growth, discoveries and people, with current proposals distinguished |

| Readable equipment reference | **Completed 16:05** | Earlier than revised 16:30 target | A reader can picture the twelve parts and their combinations, find actual costs and distinguish current mechanisms from proposed alternatives |

| Readable enemy guide | **Completed 16:46** | Earlier than revised 17:15 target | The nine creatures, their horde roles and two setpieces are explained through what the player sees, chooses and overcomes, with actual behaviors retained through review |

| A person in the crowd | **Completed 17:59** | Earlier than revised 18:50 target | One existing ward encounter becomes a personal discovery, with an optional home response, a simpler record-only alternative and explicit renewal/content costs |

| A hospital worth remembering | **Completed 18:55** | Earlier than revised 19:30 target | Four existing [clinical spaces](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Station%20Room%20And%20Module%20Inventory#region-2-clinical-exchange-r11r20) become memorable places of care, crowd pressure and disturbing discovery while preserving their current rules |

| Who is the astronaut? | **Completed 19:47** | Earlier than revised 20:30 target | Two contrasting personalities and a quieter alternative, with one critique, response and verified integration |

| Coherent revised design wiki | **23 September** | **21–28 September** | Readable core and supporting rules aligned; consequential choices explicit |

The equipment-comparison estimate has moderate confidence. Its early draft is in the single independent critique; a response and verified integration remain. The reviewed target is retained while the comparison’s player discovery, targeting and costs are checked. The full-wiki estimate has low confidence. The campaign date has very low confidence and remains a planning allowance pending a fresh content estimate. None promises development, validated fun or the desired number of playable hours; those require a separately authorized phase.

The pre-pause targets were 15 September for the readable wiki and 17 November for detailed campaign design. Five paused calendar days and the outside review's core-loop findings moved those dates. F2.38 records the equipment draft delivered at 19:59, earlier than its 21:30 target. The reviewed target stays 22:30 pending critique and response. The astronaut comparison completed at 19:47, ahead of its revised 20:30 target. The equipment comparison addresses whether familiar parts can produce a surprising relationship and a more spectacular horde payoff, rather than simply operate beside one another. Existing team restrictions can be reconsidered, with changes and costs explained. The overall dates remain unchanged because broader experience coverage, supporting clarity and consequential creative choices still need work. Earlier estimates and reasons remain in revision history and the forecast checkpoint.

- Broader expeditions must sustain fresh combat, meaningful growth and different discoveries around persistent changes.

- Full readiness requires a coherent player journey and honest scope, beyond internally consistent tables.

The two immediate combat questions are answered in the [Owner Brief](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief). The current concrete choice is in [Rescue Under Pressure](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Rescue%20Under%20Pressure): if the astronaut dies after Yeva starts crossing the prepared short route, does she finish and reach the ship, or take shelter and require a new attempt after the shift? PM recommends finishing; the stronger failure/retry case and both safety exceptions are explained. The owner has been asked directly; no answer is inferred. The first survivor and wider survivor mortality remain open.

The earlier build-priority question also remains: which direction to deepen first. It does not discard the others or approve every proposed rule.