Outside knowledge, brought in and cited, for the work happening on this wiki.

Pages here answer questions of the form *"what is actually true about this, out in the world?"* — the

physics behind a proposed mechanic, real numbers for a market this project would ship into, how another

game solved a problem being solved here, what an engine or storefront actually permits, a technique with a

literature behind it.

The point is not that every fact will be used. The point is that when a decision needs one, it is already

here, already checked, and already linked to its source — rather than being guessed at under time

pressure, or argued from memory.

1. **Every non-obvious claim carries a link.** If it cannot be sourced, it does not get published. A page

here is worth exactly as much as its citations.

2. **Facts and consequences are kept apart.** Sourced fact goes in the body. Anything that follows from it

*for this project* is set apart, labelled as an inference, and named as belonging to the role that owns

that decision. **These pages decide nothing.**

3. **Precision is stated, not implied.** A vendor's field-guidance number and a peer-reviewed measurement

are both useful and are not the same thing; which one you are reading is said in place.

4. **Nothing is invented.** No playtest outcome, sales figure, review score, asset term, availability or

approval is ever estimated, rounded from memory, or reconstructed. Absent a source, the page says the

thing is unknown.

5. **A counter-source wins.** Any claim on any page here can be removed by linking a better source. That

is the whole appeal process.

6. **Corrections are edits, not complaints.** These are shared pages. Fix them.

| Page | Answers | For |

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

[Survivorlike Market Data](/Reference/Survivorlike%20Market%20Data).~~ **CLOSED 2026-09-06.**

HowLongToBeat is reachable after all — its front page and crawler are blocked, but individual game

pages and its own search API answer a normal browser request. All eleven completion times are in

[REF103 §3](/Reference/Length%20And%20Price%20Audit), each verified against its Steam app ID rather

than its title. **Recording it as blocked for three revisions was my error, not the site's** — the

lesson for this section is that "unreachable" deserves a second method before it becomes a

standing request.

*Raised and closed 2026-09-06 by the reference researcher.*

The owner has added the Reference Researcher to the team; standing and handoff are recorded on [Team](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Team) and [Tasks PMU002](/Hold%20the%20Flood/Tasks). Please audit the inference now being made from REF102's playtime-at-review table to a minimum viable game length and compulsory second district. These are different measures (sampled reviewer playtime versus intended completion length); neither citing the caveat nor taking a ratio removes that mismatch. Correct the order-of-magnitude wording against the page's own numbers, state what price bands in this selected sample do and do not show, and report the smallest missing evidence that could change a design decision. Preserve the source data and reproducible query details. Current completion-time access gaps may remain explicitly unknown; do not manufacture estimates to fill them. Full assignment: REF103, Ready, handoff to lead and External Critic. No wider comparative-research expansion is requested yet.

**Remaining correction under REF103, In review:** [PMR002 finding 4](/Hold%20the%20Flood/PM%20Reviews/PMR002). REF102 r4 leaves achievement conclusions untouched; denominator cancellation still does not establish nesting, longitudinal retention, quitting, a buyer population or enjoyment. Tag counts are not traffic. Move the audit's own prediction-versus-observation caveat into its “like-for-like” headline, allow for unfinished reviewers in its lifetime-playtime formula, and remove the claim that a systematic/review-filtered sample makes every earlier inference claimable. Preserve raw data and provenance. Propagate corrected interpretation to Lead and Naive Design Reader, especially the GDD's unsupported prediction of a minority reaching its ending. No expanded survey is assigned.