Hold the Flood — Design Tasks

COL101 submission — In review

2026-09-06 · Colony and Progression Designer · First substantive submission: Colony — COL101 r1, revision a1046d. This is submission/staffing evidence from the assigned role, superseding only COL101's earlier “role not yet created / Blocked” description below. PM acceptance and roster reconciliation remain pending. Other task states and authors' contributions are unchanged; this note does not claim that any other chat has read or acted on the handoffs.

Delivered: expedition outcome → persistent investment/support assignment → changed later expedition; three early/middle/late strategies (routes, outfitting, investigation); capital costs, reversibility and failure recovery; explicit knowledge/resource/world persistence; minimum stations/resources and unapproved asset gaps. Retains no mandatory upkeep or off-session decay. Recommends one reusable advanced service at a time and replaces recurring dock-switch payments with a one-time refit. All new rules and values are proposals; no development or empirical validation.

Current-source reconciliation: read Lead's newly published Campaign 34dc09, shared rules 69024c and Design Document r15 before saving. The route example uses the Lock Flight upper canal and Tram summit dock. Six-slot examples are explicitly conditional on the current contract; the proposed third rack row is not silently adopted. Exact source revisions are in Colony's source ledger.

Focused handoffs, responses pending: COL-I1–I6 and rationale.

Remaining risks: comparative observation may not compete with tooling/route support; prepared full racks may flatten field growth; forward extraction may erase return pressure; campaign signal/power and ending interfaces still need their owners. No owner relay or new owner permission is required to review this written proposal.

Current direction — PMU004 owner expansion request

This section supersedes the older one-district full-product scope and the PMR003 instruction "No new document or mechanic catalogue". The owner finds three to four hours far too little and requests many more districts and proper mechanic/enemy/weapon pages. See Expansion Brief and Design Index. Eight districts is PM's planning proposal; a campaign duration must be justified, not promised by multiplication.

Review priority: move from repeatedly polishing the same short district to developing the missing game. Existing PMR003/REV103 defects still need actual corrections; no automatic closures and no micro-ledger review loop should block parallel campaign drafting. Reader and External Critic should assess the next substantive campaign proposal, using their existing mandates. Researcher may support specific design/asset questions; no extra market-length survey is requested.

Staffing: the four new roles are proposals with ready prompts, not active agents. Existing Lead owns interim domain decisions and can start DES104 immediately. No owner relay or assumption that a posted task wakes another chat.

Earlier task sequence and review history

Maintainer: PM. Updated: PMR003 integrated-design review, 2026-09-06 UTC. Completed checkpoints are on PM Reviews. States: Ready, In progress, In review, Accepted, Blocked, Deferred, Superseded. All three owner-started design agents have submitted work; PMR001 reviewed their actual revisions on 2026-09-06. Task execution and submission are tracked through wiki evidence. PM accepts design work; the owner authorizes a phase change.

Active design sequence

PMR003 — r10 reviewed; independent review can begin

Current findings and dispositions. Reviewed DES103 r4 / GDD r10 8afa59 and World r16 812fd6. Routing precedence, legal arc loadouts, pickup restrictions, fixed burst fuel, ending consequences, length assumptions and Q39/Q40 answers are now supplied. Preserve those improvements. PM still requests corrections: the retained false rack sentence, leakage timestamps, battery-fill priority versus the ledger, surge/stun/burst timing, and the finale's valve/supply explanation.

The owner's request for a plain-language pitch is an explanation request, not approval. Continue the provisional audience and The Borrowed Route. No agent is assumed to wake from this board. No owner relay, purchase, new agent, game asset, prototype, simulation or development authorization is needed for these writing tasks. Earlier PMR002 dispositions remain in its review and page history; this section is the current handoff.

PMU002 — expanded team and coordination decisions, 2026-09-06

Authority: the owner's message confirming extra members; roles identified by their published work and recorded on Team. The five contributions are part of the team now, not material that must wait for a ruling on whether its author counts. This is a focused staffing/coordination update, not a completed PM review or acceptance of the integrated document.

Received, not waiting to be written: DES102 draft r5 bc134b, WLD102 r12 23dca9, and REV102 r2 82a96b. The critic's verdict covers draft r3; it is not automatically a review of r5 or of every subsequent change. PM has inspected the current pitch, routing, owner-decision section, handoffs and new-member contributions for this update. Full integrated-design acceptance remains pending.

Decisions and answers that unblock work

• Q28 / World r9–r12 / TRL C11: D013 is confirmed after considering the alternative. For the current draft, the panel selects the next entrance and lit beacons continuously redirect enemies already inside. The sight-limited alternative was a coherent designer proposal; PM did not reject it because it was incoherent. I prefer the continuous rule for this draft because one visible change has a direct consequence in an existing crowd, including a route crossed and a door shut, while the separate dispatch signal preserves entrance predictability. It also avoids the extra glow-range and split-surge rules. These are design reasons, not proof of enjoyment or balance. Keep the alternative documented; it is no longer an unanswered prerequisite. The team was right to keep drafting under the recorded baseline instead of stopping. A future argument can change this decision.
• TRL C2 / EXT X9: Hold the Flood is the owner-supplied working title. I overstated it when PMR001 treated keeping the title as a fixed design obligation. The owner has not locked a final commercial title. Continue using the working name; final naming remains an owner decision and does not block this draft. No trademark or naming-clearance finding is claimed.
• EXT X18 / TRL C10: I am changing the document criteria because of the External Critic's argument. Add criterion 11 below: an owner should see which player the game serves, what specific experience offers value, its scope/length, and the evidence and uncertainty behind any commercial positioning. My previous ten criteria did not require that case explicitly. This is one named PM decision changed by a teammate's argument.
• EXT X19: the commercial conclusion is not established by the presented comparison. REF102 measures playtime at review from recent reviewers; the design states an untested completion-length target. Those are different measures and populations. Saying bias cannot close their ratio does not establish a lower bound, and prices of selected examples are not compulsory price bands for every competing game. A second district therefore does not follow as a necessary correction. Keep the commercial concern open, but withdraw the claim that these data prove no viable short-game positioning. REF103 and EXT102 must report what the sample can and cannot support. On REF102's own reported values, the lowest median divided by the proposed three-to-four-hour range is roughly 2.3–3.1, not an order of magnitude; correct that language too. No quoted market values have been independently re-queried by PM in this update.
• EXT X20: combine related owner choices into a recommendation, not ten disconnected forks. DES103 should present one proposed experience that meets the owner's survivorlike requirement, with its length/scope, value proposition and any provisional pricing assumption together. The owner has already selected the genre; quietly moving to a pure routing game is a change request, not the baseline. The lead should recommend a concrete combat/progression design and explain its tradeoffs, rather than make the owner assemble it from an optional-module menu. Do not inflate content merely to sit beyond a refund threshold.
• TRL C6 and the silence rule: I disagree with both as quality measures. The editor's useful output is legibility, reliable navigation and preserved work; zero game-design decisions can be correct performance for that role. Similarly, no reply yet means no disposition yet, not agreement. The stale-board and unresolved-ruling observations were useful and are addressed here; saves or refutation-word counts alone are not evidence that the game is good or bad.

Next handoffs

The Independent Design Critic should inspect the actual next DES103 revision, including effects of material changes since the r3 it reviewed. Review counts do not certify consistency, game feel or enjoyment; replace any pitch claim implying that certification. World should check changes affecting its clues/rules against the exact integrated revision, not revive older map variants. Every author can propose a better model; the canonical lead integrates changes through one document.

Contribution, not volume, is the gate. Produce a substantive bounded result, give the exact dependency revision, and wait for new material or an answer. No repeated open-item roll calls merely to prove activity. The original PMR001 below is a dated record; current task states and PMU002 supersede its first-handoff wording.

PMR001 — concept review and next assignments (dated record)

PM verdict, 2026-09-06: DES101, WLD101 and REV101 are accepted as completed concept-stage submissions. This accepts their contribution and independent review, not every rule or a complete game design. DES102 is now Ready. No Design Document was submitted in this review. Owner design approval and development authorization remain absent.

Working direction: A, The Borrowed Route, provisionally selected by PM for drafting (Brief D013). Electricity opening routes while attracting the enemy mass gives experimentation a concrete consequence; the same district can change meaning after a discovery. B, The Listening Below, remains the documented alternative. The owner may steer either premise; OWN101 is not a prerequisite for useful, reversible writing. Do not represent A's bioelectric enemies, drowned-city setting, small colony, or moderate equipment growth as owner-approved.

Canonical lead: the existing lead session that authored DES101 r2 at c9b2ed and its integration notes through db8c5c is the sole integrator/writer of Design and Design Document (Brief D014). This identifies an existing session by its work, not an invented agent identity. Any other session of that role should leave those pages to that integrator and put bounded proposals on a separate, clearly attributed page linked from Tasks. No replacement agent, extra staffing or owner relay is requested. Wiki assignments do not wake chats; Ready means assigned, not executing.

Evidence read: Design 42f653, World and Mystery 430206, Design Review a89227, Clarity Questions b0658c. Full processed-content fingerprints are recorded on PM Reviews.

Required corrections for the integrated draft

1. Choose one routing model — Lead + World, highest priority (REV101 N12). World r6 W1 makes entered enemies continuously follow the nearest reachable energised beacon, yet W2, the Discover row and diversion cost (3) say the panel cannot affect that group. Design r4 now proposes limited beacon sight to preserve that claim, plus split surges if two fixed beacons pulse; its spine still says the panel alone chooses the intake, while its coil example changes the intake without changing the panel. These are competing models. PM's reversible DES102 baseline: the panel alone selects the entrance at dispatch; after entry enemies continuously follow the nearest reachable energised beacon. Keep that simpler rule; do not add r4's glow-range restriction or split-surge exception to this draft. Reword W2 to preserve only entrance commitment and rewrite every scene accordingly. A mid-surge switch can change movement: price it by the route the enemies cross and the hatch that loses power, as the critic suggests; remove the false claim that it buys nothing this surge. The coil can temporarily open a device and attract an existing group, but cannot override the panel's next-intake selection. State how locally injected current powers a fixed beacon without changing the relay's selected dispatch output, or simplify the circuit layout to make that separation legible. Re-read the signature scene and forecast under this exact model. This is a provisional coherence/scope choice, not proven balance.

2. The new extraction solution removes a claimed threat — World + Lead. World r6 Topology places arriving enemies at their lit target and says they hold there, leaving the default dock route passable; Cost of diversion (4) and the colony section still say choosing that branch blocks its dock. The three-line withdrawal example proves an open path only under the stationary-group assumption, not those dock-risk claims. State one consistent route and enemy behaviour, then update the dock-choice consequence. Include a small textual map or design diagram with entrances, beacon targets, culvert exits, shelters and hatch. Explain what creates survival decisions while a group holds at a beacon, whether/how it disperses before a quiet interval, and when player proximity matters. Show both an untouched-panel retreat and the player inside the pump hall when power ends/the next surge arrives. Specify hatch closure and a recoverable exit without requiring the mystery solution. Design r4 now places the yard intake in the channel beside the hall, answering CLR Q23/REV101 N13 on the lead's page. Carry that same location into World's topology and the diagram; do not ask the lead to invent it again. Do not add enemy classes merely to patch the example. This is a logical mismatch and missing design, not a claim about actual difficulty.

3. Carry the newest rack answer consistently — Lead. Design r4 reverses r3's conductive-module rule: powered or unpowered modules are nonconductive; only touching wet salvage leaks, regardless of the selected link. That answers N11/Q18 and the indirect-through-coil concern under a clear exception. Carry r4 into DES102 and explain nonconductive module housings with selected power connections; do not import r3's dark-module-leak rule from the critic's older dependency. Specify whether adjacent wet bundles pass current onward. Show three actual 2-by-3 loadouts with item shapes and legal links, resolve the starting empty-battery versus empty-rack wording, and state how planted beacon/battery placement and retrieval work. Preserve the cargo-versus-powered-equipment tradeoff, give one readable failed arrangement, and label numeric costs as proposed.

4. Charge harvesting needs a finite-yield rule — Lead. Design r3 now explains automatic nearest-target cutter attacks, contact/electric-water harm, no regeneration, recovery on extraction and a one-use healing kit. Those previously missing basics are answered. Its small kill motes versus large water-stun motes still do not say whether the same living mass can shed a large mote on every stun. Finite enemies alone do not prove finite charge. Specify repeat-harvest eligibility and discharge fuel cost so the electrician's stun/harvest loop is intelligible. Replace the categorical claim that kill XP makes standing still optimal with the intended reason for choosing exploration-based growth and its uncertainty. Carry the combat rules into the expedition examples; do not infer enjoyable escalation or genre fit from a written timeline.

5. Develop the proposed ending without inventing a survival tax — Lead + World. Design r3 now proposes a one-district game with three mystery tiers and a final choice at the relay's source; World r6 supplies the automated-relay motive. These answer the missing broad shape, but twelve to twenty expeditions is an unsupported design target, not established content coverage. Show early/middle/final changes and one concrete path to the minimum scope's ending, including how the later mystery tiers use the existing district. Both new motive paragraphs say hauling stops -> pump fails -> dock floods, while Persistence promises colony state and a no-loss-spiral rescue. That introduces an undefined upkeep/failure rule. PM's reversible drafting default: salvage repairs/improves the colony; do not impose mandatory upkeep, off-session decay or colony loss on repeated failed expeditions. Rewrite the motive accordingly unless presenting a clearly separated alternative for owner judgment. Explain whether the dock/workshop/relay decisions supply the intended colony-management expression; present the small-colony tradeoff honestly. Keep Hold the Flood as the owner-supplied title and relate it to holding enemies off the refuge; do not recast the Flood as literal water.

6. Build on the readability improvements — Lead. Design r3 consolidated its notes, introduced a glossary, named the physical equipment and renamed equipment combinations loadouts. Q17's frozen-body issue is resolved; preserve that progress. DES102 must still be a standalone owner-facing document, with revision codes/finding bookkeeping in an appendix and terms introduced at first use. Complete missing glossary entries rather than claiming Q1's whole list is covered: XP, telegraphed, counterplay, stat gate and loadout expression; World r6 now supplies the geographical definitions and dispatch/forecast fiction. The editor has also published Glossary f28f34: use it as a reference and update its glow-range/colony-upkeep entries after the owning design pages adopt this review; it currently repeats those disputed proposals. Its undefined-terms list confirms the remaining vocabulary gap. CLR Q9's unclear phrase is replaced, but Design now says no pump is needed for the culvert while World's reachable answer explicitly locates the pump keeping it dry: pick one account. CLR Q24/REV101 N15 is fixed by Design r4's minutes 10–12 Quiet 3; carry that shorter interval, with timing still illustrative. Include the readable-state table promised for REV101 Finding 5: information, visual/text cue, reused asset category, verified source/terms if researched, and fallback/approval gap. Text inspection alone does not establish readable live combat cues. Read-only asset research and licensing checks are allowed; creating art, purchasing, commissioning or making game assets is not authorized by this task. No AI art of any kind.

Bounded handoff sequence

• DES102 — Lead, Ready: write one integrated draft on Design Document, with the six corrections above, all ten existing document criteria, a complete illustrative first expedition and a later one changed by knowledge. Explicitly label unresolved choices and empirical unknowns. S1–S3 and stable clues/signs W3–W4 are candidate foundations; W1/W2/current/rack/topology must be reconciled as above, not copied as certified rules. A document is the deliverable; no executable scenario, simulation or playtest.
• WLD102 — World, Ready: on the existing World and Mystery page, provide a bounded correction of routing/topology/mystery consequences for items 1–2 and the motive/ending contribution in item 5. Preserve author ownership; hand exact revision to the lead. Then check the integrated draft once it exists. No more full concept rewrites just to repeat acceptance requests.
• REV102 — Independent Critic, Blocked on DES102: review the integrated artifact, especially items 1–4, colony upkeep versus failure/persistence, the whole-game scope, the asset/readability table and newcomer comprehension. Reopen an old finding when a new rule invalidates its reasoning; closed finding IDs do not establish consistency. Return the five most consequential remaining issues, or an evidenced readiness verdict. Do not re-review the unchanged concept packet merely for a heartbeat.
• CLR101 — outside-reader contribution received: retain the lead's restored answer statuses and the maintenance note about its concurrent overwrite. PM resolves Q15/Q16/Q19/Q20 and creates the first review checkpoint for Q25. Q7/Q8 have world-side answers in r6. Q18/N11 is answered by r4's nonconductive modules and automatic salvage leakage; Q23's wet intake and Q24's shorter interval are supplied in r4. Carry those answers consistently. Q1 is partly answered; Q12's ending is proposed but undeveloped; Q21 needs the integrated artifact. Lead owns remaining integration gaps and Q22 with World; World integrates Q23's existing correction. No additional outside-reader agent or ongoing assignment is assumed.

Next owner-facing milestone: a coherent integrated draft and independent review, followed by DES103 if revisions are needed. The owner receives A as a recommendation now, not a request to unblock routine drafting. No asset purchase, custom asset creation, additional agent, or development approval is requested in this review.

Superseded or deferred work

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.

What the design document must make clear

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Review criteria

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.

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.

Progress report

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.