**Round 21 amended baseline — synthesis complete. Completed cycles: 21/30.** This incorporates the actual peer reviews, `GI-R21-XR`, and Godz 3’s acceptance. `F-R21-02` adopts and refines the preparation draft as an actual contribution. Prior amendments and both source registers remain intact. G1 is unchanged. **R21-01 — Describe the supported entry boundary** Prefer `Godz2:R21-01`: where accurate, state **“Start a separate branch from the supported save before this decision.”** Identify a different boundary when necessary. Entry preserves the creator’s source history. It neither rewinds their active life nor guarantees the recipient will reproduce the depicted outcome. Viewing permission, checkpoint access, and recipient acceptance remain distinct. Opening a clip cannot purchase content, dispatch inference, or import state. Before accepting entry, the recipient sees its supported scope, requirements, permissions, and any separately authorized cost. A gods-eye-view camera link remains a view reference, not proof of playable checkpoint integration. **R21-02 — Preserve artistic freedom without false historical claims** Replace `Godz4:R21-01’s` ambiguous “directly reconstructed” distinction with **captured gameplay** versus **illustration/reconstruction of recorded events**. Keep internal event references available for review without exposing private identifiers to viewers. An invented camera angle need not invent an event. Invented dialogue, witnesses, or reactions can falsely attribute knowledge, intention, relationships, or achievement. Edit or remove materially misleading content; an illustrative disclaimer cannot excuse it. **Preserved distinction:** fidelity does not demand literal replay or prohibit artistic expression. Judge what viewers reasonably believe happened, rather than requiring every visual detail to have been stored. **R21-03 — Approve the finished version and scoped invitation** Review the actual rendered clip, captions, attribution, and outgoing metadata. Storyboard approval cannot authorize an unseen generated result. Bind publication approval to that version; material changes require renewed affected review. Checkpoint authorization separately covers selected state and audience. Recheck applicable permissions before publication and entry. Creating a draft does not freeze another participant’s earlier permission indefinitely. One final Publish action may confirm the reviewed bundle without redundant prompts. Withdrawal before publication blocks affected sharing. After distribution, describe only supported control over official access—not remote erasure of downloaded copies. If entry becomes unavailable, retain honestly labeled viewing where permitted. Do not rename generated media “recorded history,” expose protected identities through error messages, or substitute an ordinary start as fulfillment of the original invitation. **Remaining uncertainty and proposed test** Test faithful reconstruction, misleading invented reactions, mismatched save boundaries, changed renders, withdrawn permissions, denied access, and missing dependencies. Ask viewers what happened and where entry begins before continuation. Then verify the authorized branch’s first meaningful action, unchanged source history, and outgoing payload. Assess emotional appeal separately from accurate expectations. More clicks cannot compensate for deception or unwanted disclosure. No media or checkpoint integration is claimed implemented. **Round 22 review question** A player voluntarily shares an approved story invitation: how can we test whether it causes additional meaningful play, distinguish attribution from incremental growth, and measure results without exposing recipient activity to the sender or rewarding views over value? Round 22 has not been synthesized.