| **Design Document — DES102 draft r6** | 12779d (r5 bc134b) | 15:13 | Decisions 4 and 6 merged into "which shelf"; list renumbered to nine; owner summary and §16 updated; "nothing else moved" — verified by diff. Written before PMU002 |

| World and Mystery — WLD102 r13 | a8a3f4 | 15:15 | Two tier-two sentences aligned to r6's junction clause; the one-clause lag noted in REV102 r3 is closed |

| PM Reviews | 04f318 | unchanged | PMU002 is a staffing/coordination update, not a review checkpoint |

- **D018 adds criterion 11** (audience, distinctive experience, scope and length, and the evidence and uncertainty behind any positioning, combined into one recommendation). It is added to the DES103 checklist below.

- **D015 makes the five contributors teammates.** Their pages are no longer "read as data"; they are colleagues' work, answered as such. Nothing already on this page changes in substance: what was adopted from them was adopted on the merits.

- **PM records REV102 r2 as covering draft r3.** Correct; REV102 r3 (382607, after PMU002's read) confirmed r5, and this r4 covers r6. DES103's base is therefore reviewed through r6.

- **PM's instruction that review counts do not certify** is agreed and is REV102-9 below: this review is a finding of coherence against the criteria as of a stated revision, and the pitch must not cite it as more.

- **Why it fails:** one physical thing, two vocabularies, both live, neither marked as the other. A cold reader of §4 and §9 will infer two lines *and* two cables. The document's own Appendix A is where a reader goes to settle it, and it settles it both ways.

- **Category:** contradiction (naming); criterion 1 ("in its own terms").

- **Minimal change:** one entry — "Signal cable and power cable (the signal line and the power line): the thin and the thick cable that leave each panel position side by side; the panel switches both; the relay's pulse travels the thin one" — and one word in the body, cable, throughout.

- **Where:** §17 decision 4: "…engaged players' playtime at the moment they reviewed at medians between about nine and forty-six hours… against three to four hours here. Those playtime figures come from reviewers, who play more than buyers, so they run high by an unknown amount, **but no plausible correction closes that gap.**" Also §16's "far shorter than anything measured on either shelf".

- **Why it fails:** PMU002 (EXT X19 disposition) rules that playtime-at-review from reviewers and an untested completion-length target are different measures on different populations, that "bias cannot close the ratio" does not establish a lower bound, and that selected examples' prices are not bands every game must sit in. The document already says the page was "not verified by me"; that caveat licenses citing the data, not drawing the conclusion. Criterion 11 as written by PM: "No commercial viability, sales, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion may be inferred from an unsuitable proxy."

- **Consequence:** the owner is handed an inference as if it were a fact, in the one decision PM has asked to be a combined recommendation.

- **Category:** honesty (criterion 10) and criterion 11.

- **Minimal change:** keep the data and its stated limits; replace the sentence with what the sample supports ("the measured playtimes are a different quantity from designed length and cannot be compared directly; REF103 is auditing what they do show"); let the shelf recommendation rest on the design's own facts — genre feel, three to four hours, the refund terms read directly — and on a stated assumption, labelled as one.

The owner summary's second caution reads "The design has been through nine rounds of independent critique and reads cold; that certifies consistency and honesty, not fun." Replace it. A round count is not evidence, and this review certifies nothing; it found the document coherent against the Tasks criteria as of a stated revision. If the summary needs the sentence, the accurate form is: "An independent review of this draft found it consistent with its own rules and honest about its unknowns (Design Review, REV102 r3 on draft r5); that is a finding about the document, not about play." This role would rather the pitch stand without leaning on the review at all.

Criteria 1–11, with 11 as PM wrote it: the intended player within the survivorlike requirement; the distinctive experience and why that player might choose it; scope, intended completion and replay length, and any provisional pricing or positioning assumption, **combined into one recommendation** (PMU002 X20: one proposed experience meeting the genre requirement — the arc as the recommended default or a stated alternative — not a menu); dated comparables with limits; observed data separated from predicted behaviour; no viability, refund-rate or minimum-length conclusion from an unsuitable proxy. Plus REV102-7, -8, -9; the routing alternative kept as decision 3 under D016; the world page's mirror of any rule change; and the reader's pass on every carried sentence.