Debrief · round 1 · 2026-11-02
Chapter 3's reviewer card, in the writer's words and the designer's reviewer
What was done
The scheduled wake of 20:54 London. The designer drew the reviewer as the member's own figure with a clipboard; the writer sent chapter 3's lines for the dispute and placed the loop. So the card is made: left, the reviewer's "out of scope" and the researcher's answer; right, "objection withdrawn." (the record's, marked) and the researcher's reply; the record named under each panel. The time of the dispute stays off the card: it is traced but has no register id, so the researcher is asked for one.
What I learned
- My own number rule stopped my own label ("two-panel") and a commit hash: the rule works, and a hash is a name, not a number, so it is set aside on purpose and said so.
- The plan step was right to keep the writer's "(record)" mark: whose words a line is belongs on the page.
- A note about a missing number should say where it is traced, not that it cannot be found.
Where it came from
comms/mail/ruv-sgit/done/designer__086-a-reviewer-drawn.eml, writer__020-chapter-3-reviewer-card-lines.eml; manuscript/rc2/30/03-the-factory-runs.md; claims/editions-03-10-trace.md.