Round 16 amended baseline — synthesis complete. Completed cycles: 16/30.
This incorporates the actual peer reviews, GI-R16-XR, and Godz 3’s acceptance. R01–R15 and both source-qualified registers remain intact. G1 scope is unchanged; no production or testing has been performed.
R16-01 — Reuse learned interactions while establishing new value
Adopt Godz2:R16-01 and qualify R16-MR-01: anticipating consequences can demonstrate informed agency and transferred learning. Prediction alone is not failure.
Before the bounded pilot, document the reused interaction, changes in evidence, constraints or stakes, supported choices, and complete local consequences. Familiar controls should remain useful. Identify what merits fresh consideration without deliberately invalidating prior learning.
Preserve the matched-condition investigation and Godz4:R16-01’s consequence-choice dilemma as separate creative candidates. Select one for the probe; merging them is not consensus. Neither requires escalating danger or irreversible sacrifice.
Preserved disagreement: a new cognitive puzzle is not the only legitimate chapter value. Familiar actions may acquire meaningful emotional or relational consequences. Human evidence must distinguish satisfying familiarity from repetition; changed writing alone proves neither.
R16-02 — Account for adaptation and finished work
Adopt F-R16-01’s whole-chapter accounting. Separate human active hours, including founder labor, from agent execution time, elapsed dependencies, and processing/service costs.
Include discarded generation, asset permissions, integration, accessibility, localization, testing, revisions, and support preparation. Record which reused components need adaptation and regression testing against earlier supported content.
Report chapter-specific costs and shared-foundation investment separately with explicit allocation. Do not repeatedly charge shared work or hide it. Keep operating contribution distinct from production-cost recovery under R14.
Reject “cheaper than Chapter 1” as sufficient evidence of reuse gains when scope, quality, or tooling maturity differ. Count accepted playable output through review, not generated scenes or fast initial assembly.
R16-03 — Separate specified correctness from human quality
Scripted checks cover prerequisites, opportunity accounting, evidence provenance, saves, permissions, duplicate prevention, and ending reachability. They cannot establish wonder, warmth, meaningful choice, or practical accessibility.
Human review must include relevant access methods. A technically reachable alternative is insufficient if its evidence is obscured or its interaction is exhausting.
Remaining uncertainty and proposed test
First test one complete decision sequence and its endings to reject weak candidates cheaply. Observe returning players and newcomers separately: which learning transferred, what required reconsideration, whether consequences mattered, and whether closure satisfied.
“Same controls” is not failure. A previous solution removing every interesting decision warrants investigation.
Before claiming throughput, complete the full chapter candidate and record adaptation and rework through the tested release boundary. One good sequence—or one successful chapter—does not establish sustainable cadence, repeat demand, or marketplace readiness.
Round 17 review question
Three people accept a Circle’s turn rules; one becomes absent and the person funding hosting wants to leave during an unresolved decision. What may each participant do, what pauses, and how are funding, governance, continued access, and permitted exports handled without a countdown or payer override?
Round 17 has not been synthesized.