Hold The Horde — Progress
Updated 2026-09-08 16:27 Jerusalem (UTC+3). This is the PM's owner-facing outcome board. The wiki is the shared record. All work remains design only.
19 tracked design packages: 16 preparation-closed, 3 open. Whole-game outline17 closed at16:20 today. New package19, Survival and Loadout, was explicitly added under380 to fill a missing core domain. Open: shared integration04 (dependent), Player Information18 (author response379), Survival and Loadout19 (authoring380). Of the16 closed packages,6 have owner-selected directions,1 a tentative preference and9 are reviewed proposals/alternatives.
“Closed” means the bounded written design/review outcome is complete. It does not mean a feature is implemented, every detail approved or fun validated. This board covers the current design batch; it is not a complete campaign or production backlog, and the closed/total ratio is not an overall game-completion percentage. Stable IDs stay fixed; added/reopened work must be recorded explicitly.
Forward forecast — baseline F1
Planning answer: a coherent core design this week, a complete first-pass game-design wiki in about two weeks, and a detailed campaign specification in roughly two to three months. These are PM estimates to manage against, not promises or measured confidence intervals. They will change as the content inventory and owner choices become concrete.
All dates are2026; times are Jerusalem. Ranges are cumulative from8 September, not durations to add together. Baseline F1 was set8 September. Dates assume ordinary weekdays, about6–8 productive agent/PM operating hours per working day, functioning local hosts, and most consequential owner choices within a working day. That does not mean6–8hours of the owner's time or guaranteed overnight operation.
| Milestone | Target | Current likely window | Confidence | What will be ready |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M0 — current puzzle/rescue decision pack | Achieved8 Sep15:59 | Original target16:30; range16:30–17:00 | Actual completion | Both written comparisons reviewed and closed; owner choices remain separate |
| M1 — whole-game outline and scope bands | Achieved8 Sep16:20 | Original18:30; revised17:00 | Actual completion | Draft369, focused review370, response374 and PM integration378 complete; architecture, scope bands and missing-work inventory prepared |
| M2 — coherent core-design baseline | Fri11 Sep | 10–14 Sep | Medium-low | One compatible proposed/selected loop: opening, builds, combat, oxygen, death/shift, rescue and home; old conflicting rules replaced and consequential choices dispositioned |
| M3 — complete first-pass game-design wiki, v1 | Tue22 Sep | 18–29 Sep | Low-medium | Every major gameplay and campaign area has an actual design, a scoped content inventory, dependencies and a usable development handoff outline; major categories are no longer only menus of alternatives |
| M4 — detailed campaign/content specification | Tue10 Nov | 20 Oct–1 Dec | Low | The approved finite inventory of regions, rooms, puzzles, clues, encounters, rewards, cast scenes and endings is specified through its state changes and recovery paths |
Will the full wiki be ready today? No. Today's decision pack and whole-game outline are prepared; they are not a complete design wiki. The working target for the first complete design wiki is22 September. The later detailed-content milestone expands that design into the actual authored campaign. Neither milestone claims that a written plan has proved fun, balance, performance or30/90/100–200hours of play.
For M3, “complete first pass” includes the story's causal chain and ending structure; station layout/shifts/persistence; equipment acquisition and progression; combat/horde/trap families; oxygen/resources; rescue/colony/cast arcs; both language-learning arcs and clue distribution; journal, controls and accessibility; content budget, production constraints and the later validation plan. Numerical tuning can remain explicitly provisional. A major domain marked only “TBD” does not satisfy completion.
M4 has the weakest estimate because no approved content inventory yet exists. It assumes a substantial authored campaign matching the brief's ambition and two additional specialists. It is approximately30–60 active working days; with the current team alone, the initial audit estimated40–80. A smaller approved campaign could be much quicker; a dense secret/language campaign or a changed global rule could exceed the range. I will revise M4 after the inventory and three representative detailed content packages are written and checked. Final gameplay validation belongs to a separately authorised implementation/playtest phase; it has no honest calendar endpoint yet.
Estimated work timeline
This is a planning schedule, not historical delivery data. “Buffer” is allowed revision/decision time, not an unassigned promise to polish indefinitely.
| Workstream | 8 Sep | 9–11 Sep | 14–18 Sep | 21–29 Sep | Oct | Nov–1 Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current decision pack | Done15:59 | |||||
| Whole-game outline and scope | Done16:20 | Use for domain design | ||||
| Core rules and shared integration | Finish / buffer into14 Sep | |||||
| Campaign, puzzles, cast, progression and languages | Start | Develop | Integrate and review | |||
| Complete wiki v1 | Draft coverage | Target22 Sep; buffer to29 Sep | ||||
| Detailed authored content | Representative packages | Expand approved inventory | Main authoring | Target10 Nov; buffer to1 Dec |
The critical sequence is core decisions and interfaces → whole-game architecture/content budget → domain designs → cross-domain integration → v1. Content detail proceeds in parallel only where interfaces are stable. Extra writers do not eliminate the PM/review bottleneck.
Next local deliveries: Player Information author response target17:00 today, range16:45–17:15; PM disposition target17:15, range17:00–17:45. Survival and Loadout draft target17:00, range16:45–17:15; focused review/response target17:30, range17:00–18:00. These are newly scoped packages supporting M2, not replacements for the whole-game milestones.
Extra agents — when and why
Plan to add two agents tomorrow,9 September, with bounded briefs prepared today. The current team can finish today's work. We will begin the two specialist streams as the relevant scopes become ready, aiming to have both available by10 September rather than waiting a week.
| Additional role | Planned start | First bounded responsibility | Reason for adding it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign and puzzle designer | 9 Sep | Develop the outline's discovery dependencies and two representative regional/puzzle chains, keeping owner mysteries revisable | Most existing work is local examples; the campaign and its deep discoveries need a dedicated author |
| Technical design and production planner | 9–10 Sep | Audit proposed scope against Unity/Steam, state/save complexity, reusable content needs and available free-asset categories; identify constraints and likely expensive systems | The largest forecast uncertainty is how much authored content and engineering complexity the design implies |
These are design roles. No gamecode, prototypes, simulations, tests, purchases or AI art are authorised by this staffing plan. The owner has not yet created these sessions; no staffing completion is claimed. PM will guide setup one step at a time. Existing Systems retains the equipment economy; if that becomes the actual bottleneck, the second specialist brief can shift to economy/content planning rather than accumulate an idle role. No additional permanent critic is currently planned.
The independent schedule audit proposed campaign/puzzle and economy specialists after the core baseline. PM keeps its point that extra agents do not accelerate core decisions, but brings onboarding forward to9 Sep so a bounded content/production audit can begin alongside integration. The production role is chosen first because the absent content inventory and feasibility assumptions dominate the long-range estimate. This is a reversible staffing judgment, not a demonstrated speedup.
Why these estimates, and when they change
Recent focused comparison/review packages took about16–49 elapsed minutes. That supports today's short delivery windows; it does not establish campaign-authoring throughput. The independent remaining-scope audit estimated2–4 active days for a coherent core,6–12 with two specialists or8–15 with the current team for a whole-game first pass, and30–60 with two specialists for detailed content. PM has allowed calendar/integration buffer around the v1 target.
- Every15-minute progress report includes the next milestone's current target/range and whether it moved. The full forecast is reviewed at each day's close, with the next substantive re-estimate by9 Sep18:00 after the scope outline.
- Keep the original target visible when revising it. Record old estimate, new estimate and the concrete cause; do not silently move dates.
- A changed core mechanism or late owner story change may add roughly1–3 working days to the core/v1 forecast; quantify the actual affected work when it happens.
- A blocked decision moves its dependent work, not every parallel stream. Host outages are reported with elapsed delay. If authors produce a queue waiting over a working day for review/integration, reduce parallel intake before adding more agents.
- Forecasts must be useful even when confidence is low. Uncertainty is a reason to widen a range and state assumptions, not to omit an estimate or wait for certainty.
| Forecast revision | Recorded | Change and reason |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | 8 Sep | First forward baseline added at owner's request; prior board had actuals but omitted estimates. M3 target22 Sep; M4 target10 Nov. |
| F1.1 | 8 Sep16:04 | M1 reviewed outline moved from18:00–20:00 to16:30–17:30 because the actual draft arrived16:01 and Reviewer had already fetched it. Review/rework still required. Core, full-wiki and detailed-content dates unchanged. |
| F1.2 | 8 Sep16:20 | M0 actual15:59 and M1 actual16:20 recorded. Both prepared ahead of forecast. M2–M4 dates unchanged: the outline is a scaffold, and scope/unit reconciliation is still required before rolling up its partial111–208 role-hour inventory. |
What changed in this report
- The whole-game outline is preparation-closed at16:20, after one focused review and author response. It includes opening through ending/secret layers and finite content bands; later story actions and counts remain proposals.
- Player Information draft375 and focused review376 arrived early. Lead is making the consolidated response379, including a coherent short rescue, instrument limits and effort reconciliation.
- Systems received380 and is writing the missing survival/loadout contract. Reviewer received the same assignment for independent criteria then the actual submitted draft. Existing hosts and settings are unchanged; no manual forwarding is needed.
- A planning discrepancy remains explicit: the outline allows8–16 author hours for a paper UI contract, while the new article estimates8–14 design days for a broader layer. These are not comparable until scope, units and review coverage are separated. Lead379 addresses that; no silent estimate substitution.
Open and closed outcomes
All milestone times below are Jerusalem time. “Updated” separates later owner-rule integration from the original preparation closeout.
| ID | Outcome | Preparation status | Decision status | Latest milestone | Next step / remaining scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Reusable equipment combinations | Closed | Selected direction | Sep7 22:19; updated Sep8 13:45 | Catalogue and numerical rules remain proposed |
| 02 | Oxygen visibility and journal pause | Closed | Selected direction | Sep7 20:55; updated Sep8 13:45 | Exact oxygen amounts remain open |
| 03 | Carried property returns on death | Closed | Selected rule | Sep8 13:45 | Shift and survivor ordering tracked separately |
| 04 | Shifts, persistent work and historical records | Open — dependent | Binding direction selected | Sep8 14:49 direction recorded | Integrate final station contract after15; older fixed-map clauses are superseded |
| 05 | Ordinary combat and horde encounters | Closed | Selected direction | Sep8 10:51; updated13:45 | Automatic ordinary fire, manual specials; balance remains open |
| 06 | First-survivor comparison | Closed | Short rescue selected; person unchosen | Sep8 response364/disposition368 | Yeva versus Aster ready; short-route condition and death/refuge timing remain explicit limits |
| 07 | Practical discovery and optional help | Closed | Selected direction | Sep8 11:23; updated13:45 | Current routes cannot be inferred from historical records |
| 08 | Cooperation and useful work aboard | Closed | Tentative preference | Sep8 12:00; updated13:45 | Equipment loans tentative; full colony/cast still open |
| 09 | Two-language expedition and journal use | Closed | Reviewed proposal | Sep8 13:45 | Detailed language system unselected;16 is a distinct evidence scene |
| 10 | How equipment is acquired and improves | Closed | Reviewed alternatives | Sep8 13:51 | Find working components versus observe/fabricate; owner choice later |
| 11 | Three distinct horde creatures | Closed | Reviewed proposals | Sep8 14:07 | Roster and origins unselected |
| 12 | Hospital story and its causal alternatives | Closed | Reviewed alternatives | Sep8 14:47 | Owner hospital/godhood draft leads; exact story/ending remain revisable |
| 13 | Player resurrection and corruption | Closed | Reviewed alternatives | Sep8 14:38 | No player decay or death budget adopted |
| 14 | Opening expedition: reusable machinery | Closed | Option A selected | Prepared Sep8 15:14; selected15:30 | Preferred direction recorded; exact starting items/rooms remain proposed |
| 15 | Whole-station mechanism comparison | Closed | Goal selected; mechanism conditional | Sep8 15:51 disposition363 | Physical connection candidate prepared; owner payoff choice and detailed content remain open |
| 16 | Testable alien-language interaction | Closed | Reviewed proposal | Sep8 15:38 | Protocol discovery prepared; does not prove request semantics or a god |
| 17 | Whole-game design outline and scope bands | Closed | Reviewed planning scaffold | Sep8 16:20 disposition378 | Use finite bands and dependencies for domain designs; story/ending/count choices and estimate coverage remain open |
| 18 | Player information and accessibility | Open — author response | Proposed interface contract | Sep8 draft375/review376 | Lead379 response target17:00(range16:45–17:15); PM disposition next |
| 19 | Survival and loadout | Open — working | Provisional resource contract | Sep8 16:23 assignment380 | Systems draft17:00(range16:45–17:15); Reviewer criteria then preauthorised review; closeout target17:30(range17:00–18:00) |
Recent delivery timeline
These are observed calendar spans from assignment to preparation closeout, including handoffs and review. They are historical measurements, not estimates of labour or promised future turnaround.
| Outcome | Assigned Sep8 | Preparation closed Sep8 | Elapsed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment progression comparison | 13:17 | 13:51 | 34 minutes |
| Three horde creatures | 13:51 | 14:07 | 16 minutes |
| Hospital-story comparison | 13:58 | 14:47 | 49 minutes |
| Resurrection/corruption comparison | 14:20 | 14:38 | 18 minutes |
| Opening comparison | 14:40 | 15:14 | 34 minutes |
| Alien-language interaction | 15:06 | 15:38 | 32 minutes |
Work sequence
| Stream | Now | Next | After that |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-station puzzle and first survivor | Both comparisons prepared | Owner reaction to final layout and Yeva/Aster | Shared-rule integration and detailed content |
| Player information | Lead379 author response | PM disposition; preserve current proposed resource interfaces | Integrate later survival decisions with bounded information states |
| Survival and loadout | Systems380 authoring; Reviewer criteria first | One focused review/response | Core rule integration and first-pass resource scope |
| Campaign and production scope | Outline17 prepared | Specialist onboarding9–10Sep; scoping reassessment9Sep18:00 | Domain designs and content feasibility |
Shared integration04 depends on the final station contract and decisions. Useful independent information and survival work is active. The owner does not need to forward routine handoffs.
Decisions for the owner
Already answered: opening A and persistent room/group connections across shifts, culminating in connecting the entire station.
Open creative question: should completing the entire connection puzzle finally stabilise the layout, or should rooms keep moving while every established connection survives? PM recommends stabilisation as a reward for mastery. This is a proposed late payoff, not an answer inferred from the opening choice; the team can continue its comparison while it is pending.
The first-survivor choice is also already with the owner: Yeva, the pressure technician preserving ward measurements (PM recommendation), versus Aster, the supply clerk suspicious of the arrival and requesting one reversible door closure. Neither is selected. Progression, creature, story and corruption alternatives are prepared for later reactions; the owner is not expected to review the whole wiki at once.
Reporting agreement
PM sends a compact report every15 minutes while useful work is active, plus meaningful completion, disagreement, blocker or decision updates. Each report gives the timestamp, changes since the previous report, numeric open/closed preparation counts, real worker activity, blockers, next deliverable with ETA, current v1 target and any forecast change, and a link here. An unchanged interval is stated honestly. No page/message counts or invented completion percentages stand in for progress. Clearly labelled estimated dates and ranges are required; never present them as known facts or guaranteed deadlines. The local monitor requires the computer and apps to remain available.