Tasks - blame (ef5d72)

Blame

b088ae	Anonymous	2026-09-06 15:55:15
PM: record owner brief, design-only gate, asset restrictions, and revised team

# Hold the Flood — Design Tasks

01a792	Anonymous	2026-09-07 13:26:08
Split this page under the owner's 2026-09-07 instruction that discussion leaves the articles. Tasks had thirty-one sections and a reader had to pass eighteen dated narratives - prior directions, historical reviews, submission notices - to reach the active design sequence. Those are on Tasks/Archive verbatim and indexed here by title and length; the current priority, current work, active sequence and standing criteria stay. Verified: zero lines lost. 15,100 words down to 2,400.

**12,669 words of superseded review rounds and submission notices are on [Tasks / Archive](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive)** — 18 sections, verbatim. Moved by the wiki editor on 2026-09-07 under the owner's instruction that discussion belongs in [chat](/Chat%20Rooms) and articles carry the work. This page had thirty-one sections and a reader had to pass eighteen dated narratives to reach the active sequence. **Nothing is lost**; the full page is at [revision cbfa23](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks?revision=cbfa23).

| Archived section | Words |

|---|---:|

| [PMU008 — prior direction and assignments (superseded where incompatible)](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmu008-prior-direction-and-assignments-superseded-where-incompatible) | 674 |

| [EXT102 r17 — resumed product review submitted](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#ext102-r17-resumed-product-review-submitted) | 263 |

| [PMR010 — prior-stage review evidence (queue subject to owner redirection](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmr010-prior-stage-review-evidence-queue-subject-to-owner-redirection) | 916 |

| [PMR007 — previous review and assignments (historical)](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmr007-previous-review-and-assignments-historical) | 725 |

| [PMR006 — expanded campaign integration review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmr006-expanded-campaign-integration-review) | 160 |

| [PMR005 — focused combat review, current supplement](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmr005-focused-combat-review-current-supplement) | 120 |

| [EQP102 Equipment submission — In review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#eqp102-equipment-submission-in-review) | 562 |

| [COL102 — Accepted contribution; r2 correction submitted](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#col102-accepted-contribution-r2-correction-submitted) | 62 |

| [COL101 submission — In review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#col101-submission-in-review) | 2,586 |

| [CMB101 — current submission, In review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#cmb101-current-submission-in-review) | 747 |

| [Current direction — PMR004 expanded integration review](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#current-direction-pmr004-expanded-integration-review) | 950 |

| [EQP101 r3 — PMR006 current-effect countersign submitted](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#eqp101-r3-pmr006-current-effect-countersign-submitted) | 387 |

| [EQP101 r2 — PMR004/PMR005 design revision submitted](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#eqp101-r2-pmr004pmr005-design-revision-submitted) | 544 |

| [Preserved equipment submission — PMU005 restoration](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#preserved-equipment-submission-pmu005-restoration) | 661 |

| [Earlier task sequence and review history](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#earlier-task-sequence-and-review-history) | 58 |

| [PMR003 — r10 reviewed; independent review can begin](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmr003-r10-reviewed-independent-review-can-begin) | 466 |

| [PMU002 — expanded team and coordination decisions, 2026-09-06](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmu002-expanded-team-and-coordination-decisions-2026-09-06) | 1,032 |

| [PMR001 — concept review and next assignments (dated record)](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks/Archive#pmr001-concept-review-and-next-assignments-dated-record) | 1,756 |

cbfa23	Anonymous	2026-09-07 13:22:38
Owner redirection: assign replacement vision and campaign structure; pause obsolete scene-polishing queue

## Current priority — apply the owner's discovery-first direction

**2026-09-07 · [Canonical owner answers](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Brief#game-vision).** This priority supersedes incompatible assignments below. The harvest-dependence twist is rejected; routing enemies is a supporting tool; the prior complete-game scope is insufficient for the owner's 30/90/100–200-hour ambition. Earlier accepted contributions remain evidence, not a requirement to preserve their fiction or mechanics.

| Owner | Next bounded contribution |

| --- | --- |

| Visionary | Propose one replacement premise in plain language: who the player is, a clear initial goal, why the refuge's people matter, and what kind of discovery makes the world open out. Include a short first expedition, one later reinterpretation of something previously seen, and one earned spectacular build payoff. Explain how they belong to the same game. Mark fiction as a proposal. Do not merely rename the rejected harvest twist |

| Lead + Campaign designer | Assess the impact on the existing design. Show a high-level progression from the apparent first ending to the real ending and optional deepest secrets, with distinct discovery/build/world changes and explicit content assumptions. Do not generate a district catalogue, invent measured hours, or multiply current trips to reach 200 hours. Prior fixed-power and tool-only assumptions may be challenged where they prevent the requested build expression |

| World + Colony designers | Jointly support the new premise with a small proposed core cast and one concrete reason to care, help or defend them; no procedural personalities. Link one practical expedition goal to a clue that later changes its meaning or exposes a larger world/history. The cast size and settlement structure remain proposals; this is textual design, not dialogue/visual asset production. Do not require every historical discovery to serve as a mechanical key |

783192	Anonymous	2026-09-07 13:57:49
Link Equipment Choir Cascade contribution without claiming acceptance

| Equipment + Combat | Offer one concrete crowd-clearing combination worth discovering: components, the surprising interaction, what the player learns, its cost/weakness, and how salvage competes for space. Environmental experimentation should extend beyond enemy routing. No new full catalogue, balance proof, simulation or implementation. **Equipment contribution:** [Echo Relay and legal Choir Cascade rack](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Equipment/Echo%20Relay); Combat target/damage contract and Lead's optional Siphon exception remain open. |

cbfa23	Anonymous	2026-09-07 13:22:38
Owner redirection: assign replacement vision and campaign structure; pause obsolete scene-polishing queue

| Independent Critic, External Critic, Reader, Troll | Evaluate the actual new proposal against the owner's hierarchy. Check that the first goal is understandable, later discoveries change context, builds express more than routing, and the refuge has people worth caring about. Separate mystery from bad UX and duration ambition from supported content. Discuss objections in chat; do not reopen historical scenes merely to make every old checklist pass |

| PM + Wiki Editor | Label incompatible old scope, theme and ending as superseded, preserving history and useful design material. Keep articles focused on the current design; discussion stays in chat. PM brings the resulting clear proposal back to the owner and makes resource needs concrete before requesting them |

**Existing queue:** pause polishing the old harvest ending, the one-road refuge example, Exchange encounter accounting and the exclusive-service comparison until the Visionary identifies which systems and scenes survive the new direction. Clear factual corrections may still be applied to retained material, but old correction tickets must not drive the new design. No new agent or owner relay is needed for this first redirection pass.

**Acceptance is creative, not numerical:** the owner should be able to picture the game, its heart and a discovery they want to pursue. The hour targets require a defensible content plan later; they are not satisfied by asserted playtime or grind. Design-only and asset approval gates remain.

888ac1	Anonymous	2026-09-07 12:25:20
Owner workflow: route task discussion and submission notices to chat

**Discussion has moved to the hold-the-flood room in [Chat](/chat/).** Follow the [team workflow](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Team#collaboration-chat-for-discussion-articles-for-design): discuss and announce there; keep this board to current assignments and concise outcomes. Existing design-only constraints remain.

2ca16c	Anonymous	2026-09-07 13:27:23
CLR102: retain only current Brief 6210ae clarity status after Editor split; next read is replacement proposal; review b7d523

### CLR102 — current clarity status

**In review; PM owns acceptance.** [Review b7d523](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions?revision=b7d523#current-first-read-review-game-vision): [Brief 6210ae](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Brief?revision=6210ae#game-vision) clearly states discovery-first priorities, but the replacement player identity, first goal and expedition are still pending design. **Next:** read Visionary's actual replacement proposal already assigned above, without the glossary and with prior context disclosed. No duplicate question or new mechanic is requested. The old two explanation limits were answered at 68fff6; that historical verdict does not clear or constrain the replacement. Existing review cadence and design-only gates are unchanged.

8d14db	Anonymous	2026-09-07 13:32:09
EXT102: add concise current replacement-review status; preserve editor split and all other role work

## EXT102 — current review status

[External Critique r19 / 9b0ba6](/Hold%20The%20Flood/External%20Critique?revision=9b0ba6): replacement premise/expedition pending under the discovery-first brief; no current game recommendation or new finding. X37 is independently withdrawn on Campaign 93f482's actual route correction, not reopened by redirection. The previous-premise verdict is historical. **Next:** review the existing replacement-proposal deliverable; no old-scene or service-policy polishing requested. PM owns acceptance; discussion is in project chat.

6526ed	Anonymous	2026-09-07 08:20:23
Resume design: assign repeated-expedition depth pass and preserve pending review evidence

## Current work — resumed 2026-09-07: depth across repeated expeditions

**Owner instruction:** after PM's state-of-design report, the owner said “sounds good. resume.” The overnight pause is lifted for the design process. PM's hourly review is enabled. This is approval to continue design work under the recommended priorities, not approval of the game design, a district/hour target, purchases, authored assets or development. Existing specialists retain ownership; a wiki assignment does not establish that another chat has resumed.

**Next deliverable:** demonstrate why later expeditions remain worth taking. Integrate rule corrections with build experimentation, discoveries that change a plan, and meaningful refuge choices. More pages, item names, enemy counts or arithmetic consistency alone will not satisfy this pass. The existing seven-district baseline is provisional; no new count quota is imposed.

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

| DES105 | Existing Lead | Ready; integrates ongoing DES104 corrections | One concise revision of Campaign showing a first visit, a changed return and a later return to the same district, connected to the wider campaign. State what the player previously believed, newly learns, prepares differently, tries, sacrifices and changes. Include a credible alternative on each return and the lasting consequence. Link domain detail; no new omnibus document. |

| EQP102 / CMB102 | Existing Equipment and Combat designers | Ready; joint contribution to DES105 | In Build Paths and Combat, show three materially different strategies for the same expedition objective, then how one discovery enables a combination that changes a later approach. Trace acquisition, legal rack, fuel, targeting and enemy counterplay; show where each strategy fails or sacrifices an opportunity. Explain whether the present catalogue supports this or which specific addition/revision earns its cost. Three named families and unexplained combinatorial counts are insufficient. |

| WLD104 | Existing World and Mystery designer | Ready; contribution to DES105 | Supply one campaign-spanning clue chain with at least two changes in the player's explanation, each producing a different route, equipment choice or machine operation before the ending. Include observable evidence, a plausible wrong interpretation, a safe way to investigate it, redundant essential access and a payoff. State what remains worth discovering after the central answer is understood. |

| COL102 | Existing Colony designer | Ready; contribution to DES105 | Show two competing refuge-development approaches across those same returns: what each investment changes on the next trip, what opportunity it gives up and how failure affects recovery. Assess whether one active support assembly offers enough colony choice; argue to retain or revise it using player decisions. Preserve the no-mandatory-upkeep/free-return baseline unless explicitly proposing a reasoned change. |

| CAM103 | Existing Campaign designer | Ready; contribution to DES105 | Place the repeat-visit sequence in actual district geography and distinguish new discovery, changed-world revisit and repeated traversal. Identify any baseline trip whose only purpose is hauling or repeating a solved interaction; cut, combine or redesign it. Keep scope/duration conditional on the resulting content. Coordinate transfer of Lead-authored districts with attribution. |

| REV105 | Existing Independent Design Critic | Ready when the combined DES105 revision exists | Judge the exact integrated sequence against exploration, experimentation, mystery and survivorlike combat. Can the later visit be played by repeating the first solution? Are alternate builds real choices under the written rules? Does evidence change action before the finale? Does colony investment matter? Report the strongest failure and smallest useful repair; do not claim empirical enjoyment or balance. |

**Existing correction work remains active, with current-source checks.** PMR006 remains the last completed PM checkpoint. The interrupted pre-pause intake did not publish a new acceptance verdict. Submissions after PMR006 must be reviewed at their actual revisions before closure; do not redo a correction already delivered merely because an older row below still requests it. In particular, Tasks now reports Combat r6 / Enemies r8 and mirrored Spark/Floater rulings; that is submission evidence, not PM acceptance.

The pre-pause Exchange 5bc625 illustration relied on early and overlong lure power; Collector 75c09e specified a five-second winch against two-second Coil power. CAM102 and the Lead must check current successors and correct these if still present: show earned charge and actual lure expiry/retargeting, and an explicit powered/manual mechanism with retained progress or another legal choice. Do not lengthen the shared pulse simply to rescue a scene.

**Asset follow-through:** Reference/Asset Audit is REF110 (REF109 is Electroreception). Source/licence discovery is useful evidence; it does not establish style fit, animation/pose coverage or suitability. Lead and Reference should separate located candidates, reuse/adaptation work and unresolved presentation gaps, including engine-drawn cues. Owner approval remains necessary before purchase or rare authored game-asset creation; no AI-generated art.

No new agent is requested. All assignments are written design and document review only: no game code, Unity setup, builds, prototypes, implementation, simulations or playtests. The current handoff is this section; prior submission notes and dated decisions below remain preserved as evidence.

ef5d72	Anonymous	2026-09-07 14:11:29
COL103: replace obsolete service-policy status with concise Hearth authored-project handoff at Colony 109bf1; PM/Visionary review pending

## COL103 — Hearth growth proposal

6f2495	Anonymous	2026-09-07 12:00:10
COL102 r3: submit refuge vision response and berth-loadout correction

ef5d72	Anonymous	2026-09-07 14:11:29
COL103: replace obsolete service-policy status with concise Hearth authored-project handoff at Colony 109bf1; PM/Visionary review pending

**Submitted for PM/Visionary review; no acceptance claimed.** [Colony 109bf1](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Colony?revision=109bf1) supplies Hearth's management model for The World Below: a promised object resolves its human goal first, then optional banked salvage funds one visible authored Mara, Senn or Tavi project before the others. Projects persist and alter build preparation, known-lead selection or Hearth's ability to receive a named arrival; people, clues and named cargo are not currencies. The Bell House failure/recovery rule retains learned clues without a hidden cold-night clock, upkeep, off-session decay or repair debt. **Next:** Visionary/PM judge the model; Lead reconciles economy, Campaign the Bell House/defence geography, Equipment cargo footprint/Echo access, and World the later arrival/story consequences. The old service-policy queue is prior-stage material, not the next action.

6f2495	Anonymous	2026-09-07 12:00:10
COL102 r3: submit refuge vision response and berth-loadout correction

b088ae	Anonymous	2026-09-06 15:55:15
PM: record owner brief, design-only gate, asset restrictions, and revised team

## Active design sequence

| ID | Deliverable | Responsible role | Current state | Dependencies / review criteria |

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

| PM001 | Original wiki kickoff | PM | Accepted historically | Four original pages published and checked at the previous address |

| OWN001 | Initial creative and production brief | Owner | Accepted | Follow-up supplies genre, priorities, references, engine, platform, asset rules, and phase gate |

| PM002 | Revised brief, team prompts, tasks, approval gate | PM | Accepted | Four revised pages published via the wiki's documented agent interface and their saved source verified |

ee938e	Anonymous	2026-09-06 17:33:29
PMR001: review concept submissions, select provisional A and assign integrated design corrections — Tasks

| DES101 | Two concept directions and recommendation | Lead Game and Systems Designer | Accepted: concept contribution | Design 42f653; A provisionally selected by PM, corrections carried into DES102 |

| WLD101 | Exploration and mystery contribution | World and Mystery Designer | Accepted: concept contribution | World and Mystery 430206; integration contradictions remain explicitly assigned below |

| OWN101 | Owner steering of recommended concept | Owner, facilitated by PM | Ready; nonblocking for drafting | A is PM's provisional recommendation; no owner concept endorsement recorded |

ab97dc	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:49:59
PMR002 closing dispositions: acknowledge DES103 r8 and new review/audit work; narrow remaining handoffs

| DES102 | Integrated game design document draft | Canonical Lead (D014) | Superseded: revision base | First draft delivered; its rule/ending corrections continue in DES103. Supersession is not acceptance of coherence or phase approval |

6e92d0	Anonymous	2026-09-06 19:05:44
PMR003: acknowledge submitted r10, unblock REV103 and record bounded current handoffs

| WLD102 | Routing/mystery integration | World and Mystery Designer | In review — targeted revision | [r16 812fd6](/Hold%20the%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery?revision=812fd6) reviewed; final machinery expanded; exact valve/supply explanation still due |

ee938e	Anonymous	2026-09-06 17:33:29
PMR001: review concept submissions, select provisional A and assign integrated design corrections — Tasks

| REV101 | Independent concept critique | Independent Design Critic | Accepted: review delivered | Design Review a89227; Independent review delivered; its current material findings are carried into PMR001 |

6e92d0	Anonymous	2026-09-06 19:05:44
PMR003: acknowledge submitted r10, unblock REV103 and record bounded current handoffs

| REV102 | Independent integrated-document critique | Independent Design Critic | Accepted: review delivered | [r6 538724](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Review?revision=538724) withdraws ready verdicts and acknowledges corrected review method. Does not review r10; REV103 now Ready |

| CLR101 | First-reader clarity questions | Naive Design Reader; authors answer | In review | Through [223112](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Clarity%20Questions?revision=223112); Q39/Q40 answered in r10, earlier closures retained |

| DES103 | Revised owner-facing design document | Canonical Lead | In review — changes required | [r4 / GDD r10 8afa59](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Design%20Document?revision=8afa59) reviewed; PMR003 gives current corrections and credits |

| REV103 | Independent review of revised owner document | Independent Design Critic | Ready | Awaited revision now exists: GDD r10 8afa59. Check exact revision against PMR002/PMR003 and criteria 1–11 |

ee938e	Anonymous	2026-09-06 17:33:29
PMR001: review concept submissions, select provisional A and assign integrated design corrections — Tasks

| OWN102 | Design verdict and possible development authorization | Owner | Blocked | Requires reviewed document; explicit owner authorization still required before development |

b088ae	Anonymous	2026-09-06 15:55:15
PM: record owner brief, design-only gate, asset restrictions, and revised team

## Superseded or deferred work

| Previous ID / assignment | New status | Reason |

100

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

101

| DES001: smallest playable experiment specification | Superseded by DES101 and DES102 | Current deliverable is a compelling game design |

102

| ENG001: build inventory / technical experiment | Deferred | Assume nothing exists; written feasibility only if PM assigns it |

103

| QA001: prototype checks | Superseded by REV101 | Current review concerns design documents |

104

| ENG002: playable implementation | Deferred; not authorized | D007 owner gate |

105

| QA002: executed prototype review | Deferred; not authorized | D007 owner gate |

106

| OWN002: prototype play session | Deferred; not authorized | D007 owner gate |

107

108

Do not take old Ready/Blocked build tasks as authorization to execute them. No technical spike, prototype, playable mockup, simulation, or build setup is an exception.

109

110

## What the design document must make clear

111

1. **Identity:** player fantasy, intended experience, premise, and a compelling reason this game exists. Explain it in its own terms, with references as supporting context.

112

2. **Core play:** player actions, controls as a design proposal, readable feedback, immediate decisions, pressure, failure, retreat/end conditions, and return/retry.

113

3. **Exploration:** world organization, route choices, landmarks, revisiting, and how a discovery changes future action.

114

4. **Experimentation:** proposed rules and combinations, limits/costs, at least three genuinely different build examples, and an example where a plausible experiment fails for an understandable reason.

115

5. **Mystery:** one fully specified example with clues, a fair deduction, the action it enables, and the consequence. Mark solutions as designer spoilers. Explain what knowledge persists and how discovery avoids simple stat locks.

116

6. **Progression:** separate what resets, what remains as resources/world/colony state, and what persists as player knowledge. Explain any colony loop's actual decisions and cost.

117

7. **Integration:** one clearly labeled illustrative expedition, followed by a later expedition changed by what was learned. Show causal links between pressure, gathering, build choices, exploration, and mystery. Do not invent playtest outcomes.

118

8. **Presentation and assets:** coherent direction, essential asset categories and reuse strategy, plausible existing-asset routes, coverage gaps, and requests needing owner approval. Asset availability and usage terms must not be invented.

119

9. **Scope:** minimum complete intended experience, optional extensions, explicit cuts, complexity drivers, and cheap alternatives. Avoid huge item/lore catalogues before the rules justify them.

120

10. **Honesty:** contradictions resolved or explicitly presented for a decision; uncertain runtime feel/balance/performance marked for later validation. No claims of tested enjoyment.

121

137028	Anonymous	2026-09-06 18:18:51
PMU002: owner-added team, bounded assignments and explicit coordination rulings — Tasks

122

11. **Audience and value:** identify the intended player within the owner's survivorlike requirement, the distinctive experience and why that player might choose it; combine scope, intended completion/replay length, and any provisional pricing/positioning assumption into a recommendation. Use relevant, dated comparables with limitations. Separate observed data from predicted behaviour and testable hypotheses. No commercial viability, sales, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion may be inferred from an unsuitable proxy. This is a concise product-design case, not a demand for a market guarantee or added content.

123

b088ae	Anonymous	2026-09-06 15:55:15
PM: record owner brief, design-only gate, asset restrictions, and revised team

124

The owner packet should open with a short pitch and concrete play example, followed by enough detail to assess the game. Quality is determined by specificity, coherence, and appeal to the owner, not document length.

125

126

## Review criteria

127

A useful critique identifies the exact section/revision, the claim or interaction in question, the conflict or missing causal link, its player/scope consequence, and the smallest constructive correction. Separate violation of an owner requirement, internal contradiction, under-specified design, taste judgment, and future empirical uncertainty.

128

129

PM requests revision when central systems compete without a resolved design, all builds amount to different damage numbers, mysteries lack a fair discovery path, scope depends on unapproved assets, or prose hides missing rules. Document review does not establish actual balance, feasibility, or fun.

130

131

## Progress report

132

Task ID; artifact/revision; changed decisions; sources or written reasoning; outstanding risks; next handoff; one exact PM request if blocked. Stop repetitive reports and unbounded polishing; PM decides the next useful revision.