Skip to main content

Example Walkthrough and Revision Findings

Method and limits​

Read the shared facts, then trace the novel and game as separate compositions. This is an authored paper review, not creator approval, a player test or proof of artistic quality.

Shared and novel findings​

The event precedes both works. The notice is false testimony; review does not promote its allegation to truth. Mara initially has limited evidence, while Iven knows the order but not council motives. The novel reveals the order only during authorized inspection and does not narrate Iven's hidden thoughts. Its selected outcome initiates an inquiry rather than claiming a verdict. Game-specific inputs are absent from the novel's prerequisites.

Game paths​

Trace notice → permission → original → comparison → certification → each outcome. Also trace permission → original → notice → comparison → certification → each outcome. Both routes reach the decision with the required allegation, evidence and risk information.

Repeat without optional recollection: evidence and disclosure remain available and intelligible. Try inspection before permission and disclosure before certification: guards explain the missing input and preserve progress. Public release exposes the signature; restricted inquiry keeps it from public view. These are distinct local consequences, not branches in historical truth. Environmental context conveys damage without inventing motive. Implementation tests are still required downstream.

Concrete rule-change impact​

Proposed change: permit unauthenticated copies to initiate inquiry, while keeping certified copies required for public proof. Do not apply this proposal to the example silently.

  1. Owner: Setting Rules, which currently requires signed certification for the usable copy. Clarify both custody permission and evidentiary use before changing content.
  2. Direct consumers: ledger identity, game treatment, novel, quest encounter, and shared arc.
  3. Dependent Core: Game Design currently gates every final disclosure on copy_certified; scope its inquiry guard separately. Narrative must preserve meaningful risk and essential understanding.
  4. Review consequences: the novel's request for certification might lose its causal necessity; the quest's inquiry path might bypass the cost to Iven. Preserve coherent stakes or revise the conflict deliberately. The original event and false notice need no change.
  5. Teaching-example decision: retain the current rule. The alternative remains a proposal with documented impact, not approved canon.

Handoff questions​

How the court eventually decides and why individual council members acted remain unresolved. They do not block the current slice. Actual visual presentation, navigation, interface usability and prose execution are downstream creative work; adding them requires their applicable constraints and checks.