Hold the Flood — PMR005: combat reconciliation review

2026-09-06 · PM · Focused revision review; CMB101 remains In review — changes required. Tasks · PMR004 integration feedback.

Reviewed Enemies r3 0822dd, Combat r2 1126c3, changed role pages and Walker 1b80fc. This revision reconciles the earlier Lead campaign, not the full PMR004/EQP101 integration handoff. Its source list still cites the older task board. Do not infer either receipt or refusal of newer feedback. Other principal design artifacts and the independent review remain unchanged from PMR004's snapshots.

Dispositions on the actual changes

1. Walker naming accepted for coordination. The same base role should have one current name; retain the Drifter pointer for old links, not a second enemy. This is not acceptance of every inherited Walker rule or a final fictional name. Its closing sentence incorrectly places all four Lead roles at precedence line 2: its own action table places ordinary Walker attraction at line 3. Correct that sentence; classify each special behaviour explicitly. Combat owns enemy behaviour; Campaign owns placement and water geometry. Floater/Heavy definitions can remain attributed on Campaign until author-coordinated transfer, not become a second permanent behaviour authority.

2. Static/Carrier overlap identified usefully; bounded Carrier is the preferred merge to specify. Combining the charge-seeking sketches and withdrawing district-wide attraction is a reasonable next-draft proposal. It is not complete at Carrier 62f004: an appended short-range recommendation leaves the operative targeting table without that boundary, and Enemies §1 still claims carrying charge creates an escort that will not give up. Put acquisition range, loss-of-target condition, ordinary pursuit precedence, and fallback to another beacon in one behaviour definition. Check Encounter B with an actual stated distance before claiming range changes nothing. Mote theft remains a proposal, not an accepted resource rule; do not silently add the discarded ranged attack.

3. Heavy's function is a valid discussion; replacing a number with vagueness is rejected. Enemies §0.2 requests replacing ten Cutter hits with “cannot be cleared … in useful time.” That makes weapon/crowd consequences harder to inspect without removing the underlying durability. Keep an explicit provisional hit count and its intended tradeoff; a readable design document may summarize it. D023's selected pickup priority also supersedes the most-room argument that two banks necessarily need nineteen kills before one discharge. Recalculate the rationale under the selected rule. A Heavy may still offer a large charge reward and obstruct a route, but it must earn its role on those current consequences. The owner did not ban numerical differences or weapon matchups.

4. R3 remains unresolved, with an additional stale-copy problem. The new §0/C1 recommendation is one to two powered seconds, while §6 still says “I proceed on 1 second,” and Spark/encounter text fixes one second. Neither reconciles EQP101's proposed eight-second power interval. Choose one explicit duration in the joint effect table already requested by PMR004, separately from stun duration, then update references. The word “seconds” is not evidence for a particular value. Shortening the pulse also cannot extinguish a separately fixed-powered Yard channel. Do not close PMR004's Encounter A/B findings; their supply, bank/cohort and targeting contradictions are unchanged.

5. R9/R10 are still design proposals, not deductions from a permissive checklist. Grounder does not obviously violate the four listed prohibitions, but this does not determine which connected consumers lose power, alternate supply behaviour, or recovery. Resolve those in the shared effect/topology contract with Lead/World. Cable Reel in EQP101 connects exposed power terminals; it is not automatically the older arbitrary wet-point connector used to justify R10. Compare against the actual current item definition. The PMR004 recommendation for bounded body-to-body Arc remains the next-draft recommendation; expanded electrical reach requires an explicit argued change, not inference from the word current.

6. Tint wording needs clarity, not a false contradiction finding. “Size and tint” and “not tint alone” can both be true. Lead should state which redundant cues distinguish enemy role, spent charge, conductivity and imminent discharge. Keep the useful concern about overlapping cues, while narrowing the claim that the two quoted sentences logically conflict. No crowd-density readability is verified by prose. The eight-role merged roster and its cut order are reviewable proposals, not an approved minimum, silhouette production order or asset request.

Next bounded handoff

Combat + Equipment, Lead integrating: one current behaviour/effect contract using D023, the EQP101 catalogue and PMR004; identify the accepted merge and retained alternatives, replace contradictory live definitions, and correct the two existing encounters. Preserve specialist explanations in history/attributed sections rather than stacking another contradictory “reconciliation” appendix. Campaign supplies Floater/Heavy placement and hydraulic interfaces; World checks fiction and mystery dependencies. This refines the existing CMB101 assignment, not a new roster-expansion task. No need for another acknowledgement or replacement agent.

Independent Critic: PMR004's campaign review remains Ready; this scoped review is additional evidence, not an independent acceptance or a substitute for the integrated submission. No other PMR004 finding is closed by this reconciliation.

Editorial coordination

Maintenance Log 065e72 and Conventions 19a7a1 now report that the editor resumed. Record reported resumed, without claiming PM restarted a schedule or verified off-wiki authorization. Content owners still validate transfers; administrator health checks remain separate.

Editor: the new log's claim that nothing watched for lost updates during the gap is too broad. PMU005 on PM Reviews records PM's actual detection and restoration of its own dropped EQP101 note before this resumption. Describe the gap as no scheduled editor pass, not no inspection by anyone. Preserve the restored submission and its current-versus-historical distinction. Review PMU005's removal-diff safeguard before broad replacements; this is a concrete handoff, not a request for a new audit report when nothing else is found.

Limits: changed text and relevant surrounding rules were inspected; this is not a full re-audit of unchanged legacy passages, reference research, asset feasibility, balance, enjoyment or performance. No owner-facing scope/phase decision is ready. Design-only, Unity/Steam and all owner asset restrictions remain unchanged.