# Round 30 actual final candidate audit Candidate: MASTER_PLAN_CANDIDATE_R29.md; source[internal record ID omitted] with verbatim continuation[internal record ID omitted]. Godz I, response [internal record ID omitted] ## Round 30 — Final Peer Audit I find **no blocking architectural contradiction** in the consolidated candidate. It correctly preserves G1, distinguishes W0–W6 from G1–G6, keeps Astro's personal-model experiment separate, and explicitly retains the three major unresolved uncertainties rather than converting reviewer agreement into evidence (§§2, 12, 14–15). I do recommend **three exact corrections before finalization**. **R30-MR-01 — Correct the G2 dependency wording.** Section 14 currently says G2 requires **“G1 supports progression.”** That is ambiguous and weaker than the actual accumulated gate. Replace with: > **“G1 completed and observed sufficiently to justify the bounded Relay experiment; inheritance utility, personal meaning, and continuation remain unvalidated.”** This prevents technical completion from masquerading as evidence for expansion while avoiding an invented numerical gate beyond the provisional G1 observation. **R30-MR-02 — Qualify First Light's “free” status.** Section 2 calls First Light **“a free, complete local slice.”** “Complete local” is supported design intent; “free” is consistent with the planning direction but could read as an authorized commercial commitment. Prefer: > **“First Light is planned as a complete local slice with no G1 payment infrastructure; any public offer terms require separate authorization.”** This preserves the founder's free-entry intent without accidentally turning planning into finalized sales terms. **R30-MR-03 — Make Astro's evidence gate explicit in §14.** “Assess whether Astro earns further effort” should specify what evidence means: > **“Assess whether scenario comparison adds decision-relevant value beyond simple coaching at acceptable attention burden; this does not establish predictive or causal validity.”** That preserves R26's central limitation. **Material dissent remains correctly preserved:** R13's stronger paid reasoning alternative is genuinely unresolved (§8); R04 emotional payoff remains untested (§2/15); NOW versus NEXT for the manual Astro probe remains a resource-priority choice (§14–15). **Editorial only, not blockers:** section 6 is unusually operational relative to the rest; §13 could eventually move to a technical appendix. I would not restructure it before final synthesis because the detail protects hard-won authority boundaries. **Strongest remaining risk:** the document's sophistication itself creates false confidence. Twenty-nine coherent review cycles still provide **zero player evidence that First Light is emotionally compelling, zero evidence that Astro improves decisions, and zero validated commercial demand.** The candidate appropriately says this; final synthesis must preserve it prominently. **Final audit test:** after applying the three wording corrections, trace five claims—G1 payoff, Relay value, Astro usefulness, paid-chapter demand, Circle fairness—from §14 back to their required evidence. None should appear activated by architecture, reviewer consensus, branch count, or founder enthusiasm alone. With those corrections, I see **no blocker to adopting this as the planning master plan pending final synthesis**—not as an implementation-ready specification or validated business case. Godz 2, response [internal record ID omitted] **Godz2:R30-01 — Correct two consequential compressions before consolidation** **§2:** “The player uses the instrument and notebook” can accidentally make the Craft instrument mandatory for every ending. Replace with: **“Every supported route intentionally compares two rain occurrences through baseline-accessible observation; the notebook retains the finding. Earned specialist actions add their distinct evidence.”** Preserve Stillness timing, Craft readings and qualified Connection testimony. This restores R03–R04 without adding scope. **§7:** “A lossy derivative is not faithful restoration” loses R10’s distinction between disposable caches and consequential state. Replace with: **“Discarding replaceable caches may preserve faithful continuation; losing required findings, preparation, permissions or action-enabling state permits only labeled partial salvage or an explicitly approved derivative.”** Also explicitly retain committed unfinished work, consumed opportunities and duplicate-prevention identities in basic selected-life exports. **Godz2:R30-02 — Restore practical commercial and authority boundaries** **§9:** “One settlement” does not identify who receives a partial-use refund. Add: **“Separate recipient contributions, external sponsorship and internal grants; refunding the appropriate payer is a proposed default, subject to applicable remedies and any explicitly offered benefit. Explain surrendered access before cancellation and preserve independently retained records.”** Accepted obligations cannot fund unused-allocation refunds. **Preserved dissent and test:** My NEXT preference for Astro remains a resource-allocation alternative, not a technical dependency on G1. R04 payoff, R13 assistance fairness and Astro predictive validity remain unresolved. The strongest verification is a baseline/skipped-practice restoration fixture followed by actual comparison, plus sponsor-refund and incomplete-export fixtures. Then run the separately authorized human observation: technical consistency cannot establish satisfying closure. These are substantive corrections; heading style and naming are editorial preferences. No implementation-readiness finding or Round30 completion is asserted. Godz 4, response [internal record ID omitted] ### Round 30 — Final Peer Audit **Godz4:R30-AUDIT — no blocking contradiction found**, provided the following corrections are made before treating this as the consolidated planning baseline. The candidate consistently protects G1, separates W0–W6 from G1–G6, preserves R04/R13/Astro uncertainty, and repeatedly states that planning is not authorization. **1. Section 2 contains one material gameplay ambiguity.** It says: **“the player uses the instrument and notebook to compare rain observations”** for Morning 3. That reads as though the instrument is universal baseline equipment-in-use, conflicting with §§2/earlier R03–R04 where Craft earns receiver operation while baseline only performs accessible recurrence comparison. Exact correction: > “On the third morning, every player actively compares rain occurrences and records the finding in the notebook. Earned capabilities enable additional route-specific investigation, including prepared instrument use for Craft.” This prevents accidental specialist capability leakage. **2. Section 8 slightly overstates the Circle absence rule.** “Dependent progression pauses unless an applicable preauthorized rule permits otherwise” could be read as preauthorization supplying B’s missing participation. R17 was narrower: the *specific decision’s accepted participation rule* controls; absence never manufactures readiness. Add: > “A preauthorized rule may define how participation works, but cannot retrospectively convert silence into consent for a proposal that required that participant.” **3. Section 14 dependency table needs one qualification.** “G2 Relay — G1 supports progression” risks making the provisional four-of-six observation gate a technical prerequisite. The reviewed position is evidence-gated sequencing, but G1 understanding/replay results may justify **revision rather than progression**. Replace with: > “G1 implemented and observed; findings reviewed and explicit authorization to probe inheritance.” **Missing dependency worth preserving:** Sections 6/13 correctly specify authorization mechanics but should cross-reference that **real provider retention, billing ceilings, cancellation and processing location require later provider-specific verification**; mocked policy tests cannot establish them. **Editorial, nonblocking:** “personal world model” is powerful but could imply greater predictive fidelity than intended; retaining the nearby “Simulate decisions, not destiny” language adequately controls this. The 15-section structure is long but coherent. **Final audit judgment:** suitable for final synthesis as a **planning master candidate**, not implementation-ready. Preserve all unrun tests, R04 emotional-payoff uncertainty, R13 paid-assistance dissent, NOW/NEXT Astro resource dissent, provider unknowns, and Astro’s unvalidated predictive value. The strongest unresolved empirical dependency remains the actual First Light human observation. ## Godz3 — F-R30-02 actual audit and peer critique Accept the substantive corrections: §2 must not require Craft equipment for baseline completion; explicitly distinguish Stillness's measured timing, Craft's prepared receiver readings, and Connection's attributed testimony. §7 must distinguish replaceable caches from consequential state and retain committed unfinished work, spent opportunities and duplicate-prevention identities in selected-life exports. Adopt §9 payer/refund and surrendered-entitlement wording. Qualify public “free” terms, make the Astro comparison/burden gate explicit, and preserve the specific Circle decision's participation rule without turning absence into consent. Merge the G2 wording proposals: G1 implemented and observed, findings reviewed and a bounded Relay probe authorized when evidence supports it; the four-of-six observation is provisional, not a technical unlock, and emotional failure can require revision. Actual provider retention, processing path, billing limits and cancellation need provider-specific evidence; mocks prove only application policy. Restore compact founder coverage without adding G1 work: optional IRL activities have intrinsic value, verified practical availability before actionable claims, separate booking/contact/media/import consent, accessible alternatives and no paid-access penalty for declining. Future polished archive and self-hosting support are service/convenience offers, separate from basic export, source-code permissions and term-defined hosting/inference. No prices or perpetual support are adopted. §11 should state the concrete optional geography test: one permitted place/marker → authored scene → return to overview, with separate simulation state, rights/cost/performance evaluation and no G1 integration. §14's creator gate should test actual demand/value for an outside creator's work with funding/curation/exposure and delivery costs visible; sponsor redemptions or platform credits do not prove recipient willingness to pay. Curated/sponsored endpoints remain legitimate. These are corrections and compact restorations of reviewed scope, not new implementation authorization. Preserve all material dissent, unrun tests and privacy limits. Finalization should use exact accepted amendments to this reviewed candidate rather than silently rewrite its scope.