Round 18 amended baseline — synthesis complete. Completed cycles: 18/30.
This incorporates the actual peer reviews, GI-R18-XR, and Godz 3’s acceptance. F-R18-02 adopts and refines the explicitly labeled preparation draft as an actual contribution. Prior amendments and both source registers remain intact. G1 is unchanged.
R18-01 — Separate review, publication, and world adoption
Prefer Godz2:R18-01 and F-R18-02: submission permits only the granted review activity. An isolated preview leads to a reviewed version; publication then requires explicit Publish authorization. One final confirmation is sufficient.
Correct R18-MR-01 and Godz4:R18-01: passing review does not itself publish content. Publication does not install it into existing worlds. Adoption follows the receiving world’s accepted authority rules, not payer preference or universal unanimity.
The initial creator format permits bounded, reviewed declarative actions. Imported text, assets, parameters, and provenance metadata grant no arbitrary execution, private-memory access, network fetching, spending, or unrelated state mutation. Mechanics exceeding supported primitives require a separate engine-change proposal.
R18-02 — Approve the complete dependency combination
Bind approval to the encounter, required dependencies, consequential assets, capabilities, and compatible runtime. Preserve the reviewed contents, not merely a mutable version label or remote address.
Before publication or supported loading, verify that the supplied combination matches the approved one. Dependency changes require affected checks and renewed release approval.
Review semantic effects as well as prohibited capabilities. A changed sound cue, testimony, or instrument parameter can change available evidence and player inference without introducing executable code.
Execution permission, distribution rights, and world-adoption authority remain separate. Attribution alone does not establish rights; engine openness does not automatically cover assets or contributed material.
R18-03 — Pin versions without promising indefinite execution
Accept F-R18-02: distinguish blocking new distribution from suspending affected operations in existing worlds.
If a pinned dependency becomes unsafe, apply the disclosed suspension policy, preserve the last verified safe history, and explain unavailable continuation. Suspension or withdrawal cannot silently rewrite canon, substitute consequences, or force migration.
Preserved bytes establish neither perpetual distribution permission nor safe execution. Review actual licensed components; claimed ancestry does not establish ownership of abstract mechanics.
Remaining dissent and proposed test
Review must not standardize creativity into sameness. Separate blocking rights or boundary defects from editorial preferences and observed quality problems. Unfamiliar interpretation is not automatically defective; passing checks is not proof of enjoyable play.
Test legitimate remixes, unclear asset rights, forbidden parameter effects, changed dependency contents under unchanged labels, and previously accepted versions requiring suspension. Verify explicit publication, exact approved delivery, bounded execution, preserved facts, and authorized migration. Perform supported actions; loading alone is insufficient.
Record review, adaptation, rework, and remediation costs once under consistent accounting. Marketplace scalability remains unproven.
Round 19 review question
A curated creator encounter receives prominent placement and subsidized purchases: what evidence distinguishes player demand from platform support, how should creator compensation and discovery be disclosed, and when should review costs or weak repeat use halt marketplace expansion?
Round 19 has not been synthesized.