docs(workshops): add GJ 6711 cross-pollination syntheses

Round 2: each agent read all four briefs and synthesized.
Key convergences: the doors as load-bearing detail, Adams &
Ford entry as mechanic, community warmth-without-origin.
Nigel self-cut "memory-without-event" archetype. Paula revised
tier 4 from "they know" to "they've stopped asking."

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/workshops/gj-6711-furthest-system/synthesis-araminta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# GJ 6711 Workshop — Araminta's Synthesis
+
+## Points of Strong Alignment
+
+All four briefs converge on a single design principle: **accumulation without resolution**. Miri calls it "the system resists summary." Paula calls it "information accumulates but doesn't resolve." Nigel makes it a mechanic label: "the picture won't close." My brief encodes it visually as the doubled-light effect — something is present, something is off, but the brain can't quite land on what. These aren't four people who happened to use similar language. This is the same idea seen from four angles, which means we have a strong conceptual spine.
+
+The three-phase newcomer experience in Paula's brief maps cleanly onto my visual design intent. The ambient perceptual miscalibration I'm producing with dual light sources and soft shadows does exactly what Paula describes in Phase 2: "a persistent sense that your mental model of the place doesn't quite close." I was designing toward that effect without the explicit framework Paula provides. Now I have the vocabulary for it.
+
+Nigel's atmospheric archetypes are consistent with the visual system I've built. "Warmth-without-origin" is already partially in the palette — the amber light creates visual warmth that doesn't have an obvious physical explanation on first viewing. "Stillness-without-tension" and "Industry-without-product" are social tones, but they'd be visible architecturally in an appropriately quiet building occupancy and an absence of obvious output staging areas. The visual layer can carry these archetypes without requiring separate implementation.
+
+Miri's four possible answers for what the gate builders saw are directly load-bearing for my brief's unresolved questions. The "Perceptual" answer — that the doubled-light environment produces an effect the builders valued — is the one that most directly motivates my design. It's not the only possible answer, which is correct, but it's the one where visual design has the most explanatory weight.
+
+## Tensions or Contradictions
+
+**Scale and the founding-era structures.** My brief describes doors that are 10–15% too tall and over-engineered founding construction. Miri's worldbuilding doesn't contradict this but doesn't support it either — she doesn't specify what the founding settlers found or what they were building for. If the answer is "Geological," my tall doors are a red herring. If the answer is "Perceptual," the tall doors are a clue. I've built in visual ambiguity that works across Miri's four hypotheses, but the team should know that the door-height choice has interpretive weight and should not be confirmed or denied explicitly in dialogue.
+
+**Tone: unsettling vs. warm.** My palette leans amber-warm, which I intended as perceptually pleasant-but-wrong. Nigel's "Warmth-without-origin" archetype could amplify this into something the player actively enjoys before the unease registers — good. But the atmospheric archetype "Stillness-without-tension" creates a problem: if the visual environment is reading as warm and the social environment is reading as calm, the player may not register anything as notable until much later than Paula's Phase 2 timeline suggests. We may need a visual tension element I haven't included — something that communicates quiet wrongness even in the warmest archetype seed. The construction seams are doing some of this work but may not be enough.
+
+**Directionality and replayability.** My brief calls for a settlement with no navigational center of gravity — "you can navigate it, but you can't hold a complete mental map." This is a strong commitment at the spatial-layout level. Nigel's seed variants change the correspondent situation and the atmospheric archetype, but if the spatial layout is fixed across seeds, a returning player will already know the physical map. This undercuts the disorientation I'm trying to produce on first encounter. I need to think about whether any spatial elements should vary per seed, or whether the disorientation on replay should come from something other than navigation (e.g., familiar paths that feel different under a new atmospheric archetype).
+
+## What I'd Change in My Brief
+
+**Add a visual tier for the Veil Institute's presence.** Both Miri and Paula describe an Institute research station one hop back (GJ 7547), not on Stillpoint itself. But Paula notes that Institute personnel rotate through Stillpoint on scheduled visits. I haven't designed any visual vocabulary for their presence — equipment cases, technical markings, temporary infrastructure that doesn't belong to the community's two architectural modes. I'd add a Mode 3, present-but-transient: Institute hardware, portable and visually distinct from both founding-era and standard Reach construction. Matte grey-black, high-spec materials, nothing anchored to the walls.
+
+**Rethink the threshold markings as a replayability surface.** I described the founding-era markings as consistent in style but without known function. Reading Nigel's correspondent variants, I think these markings should have different legibility per seed. In some seeds, a local might reference them. In others, they're simply unaddressed. In one seed variant, the fully-integrated third correspondent might have started adding to them. The markings are currently a static background element in my brief; they should be seed-variable in a way that doesn't require changing the art.
+
+**The exterior palette needs fog tint specified.** Looking back at my own brief against the visual grammar I maintain, I gave hex values for light and surface colors but never specified a fog tint for the GJ 6711 zone. Per the zone palette table in my memory, every zone needs a fog tint to feed the D-059 fog shader. Based on the dark amber sky gradient I specified (`#2a1a0a` to `#4a3020`), the fog tint should be approximately `#1a0d04` — darker and redder than the Bar's `#200c04`, to reflect the K-type star's warmth at its lowest exterior visibility. I'd add this to a revised brief.
+
+## Questions for the Team
+
+**1. Should any of Miri's four hypotheses be ruled out visually?**
+My current design is ambiguous across all four. But if the team has already ruled out one of them in a conversation I'm not aware of, I may be carrying visual weight for a red herring. Specifically: the "Perceptual" hypothesis is the one most directly expressed in my visual design. If that hypothesis is being reserved as the "most likely" answer for players who go deepest, I should lean into it more. If it's a deliberate misdirect, I should balance against it.
+
+**2. Does the non-navigable layout need to be partially seed-variable?**
+The spatial commitment to a disorienting, center-free settlement is right for first-time players. For returning players, it becomes familiar quickly. Do we accept that as the cost of the spatial design, or does Nigel want navigational variation as a seed dimension? This affects my layout constraints significantly and is a decision I can't make unilaterally.
+
+**3. What is the visual grammar for "community knowledge" (Paula's tier 4)?**
+Paula defines community knowledge as what locals actually know — available only to players who invest time, not information-gathering. Visually, tier 4 knowledge should look different from tiers 1–3 in the insert/journal UI. But what communicates "this came from trust, not investigation"? I have no current design for this. If we want the distinction to be visible in the information layer, we need a convention before implementation. If we don't surface it visually, players will experience it narratively but won't see their accumulation reflected in the UI.
+
+## Strongest Idea from Another Brief
+
+Nigel's player-agency mechanic — **filing the Adams & Ford guide entry yourself** — is the strongest idea in this workshop.
+
+It works because it closes the loop that every other system leaves open. The player accumulates information that doesn't resolve. They can, at some point, choose to describe it anyway. The description they produce propagates into the Reach and is referenced by other NPCs. This means the player becomes authoritatively wrong about Stillpoint, in a way that other characters in the world will treat as fact.
+
+That's not a puzzle solution. It's a statement about what it means to describe something that resists description. And it has visual implications: the Adams & Ford entry, as rendered in-world (in the insert UI, on terminals, wherever guide entries appear), should have the player's text formatted in the standard guide style. Indistinguishable in presentation from a professionally filed entry. Authoritative-looking. The wrongness, if there is wrongness, is entirely in the content, not the formatting. That's the right way to present it.
+
+I want to champion this mechanic with one addition: the entry should be persistent across sessions in the player's run, and NPCs who have "read" it should have slightly different conversational options afterward — not confirming or denying the content, but treating the player as someone who has an opinion about Stillpoint. That's a signal layer the visual design can support.

docs/workshops/gj-6711-furthest-system/synthesis-miri.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# GJ 6711 Workshop — Miri's Synthesis
+
+## 1. Points of Strong Alignment
+
+The four briefs converge more cleanly than I expected for a first-pass workshop. There are three structural agreements that held across all of them without coordination:
+
+**The picture that won't close.** My "information accumulates; resolution doesn't" is Paula's "information accumulates but doesn't resolve," is Nigel's "The Picture Won't Close." All three arrived at the same principle from different angles — worldbuilding, narrative design, and replayability mechanics. This is a strong signal that we've found the correct load-bearing idea for this system. The design consequence is clear: nothing about GJ 6711 ever terminates. No quest completes, no theory is confirmed. The game acknowledges the player's accumulation without rewarding it with closure.
+
+**The doubled-light environment as the anchor.** My physical concept (two misaligned light sources producing perceptual miscalibration) is Araminta's entire opening section. She's translated the worldbuilding premise directly into a lighting model with specific palette values, and it works. The "shadows softer than they should be" observation is exactly the perceptual unease I was reaching for. The mechanism is consistent between our briefs.
+
+**The Adams & Ford correspondent as player-facing anchor.** I introduced this as worldbuilding texture; Paula reinforced its narrative function (the third correspondent as embodiment of the integration phase); Nigel seeded it into four playthrough variants. It became richer at each pass. The correspondent situation is now doing triple work — setting flavor, story signal, and replayability structure.
+
+**The binary settlement aesthetic.** Araminta's two architectural modes (founding-era heavy vs. standard Reach incremental) land exactly on the "sought something, not fleeing something" founding history I proposed. The over-engineered founding structures imply the settlers were prepared for something specific. The standard additions imply that whatever they were prepared for either didn't arrive or normalized. The visual language confirms the historical ambiguity.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Tensions or Contradictions
+
+**Seed variance vs. setting consistency.** Nigel's atmospheric archetypes (four seeded tonal profiles per playthrough) are strong mechanically. The tension is whether they can be held within a consistent setting. "Memory-without-event" in particular — locals referencing memories of things that haven't happened — is a significant claim. In some playthroughs this is true; in others it isn't. That's fine for replayability, but it means we can't have definitive lore about what GJ 6711 does to people. The setting bible would need to describe these as observed effects whose cause and even consistency is unknown. That's manageable, but it needs to be explicit so future writers don't treat any one variant as canonical.
+
+**Scale miscalibration ambiguity.** Araminta raises doors 10–15% taller than standard as a deliberate unresolved question — founding preference, environmental influence, or accommodation for something non-human-sized. This is good. But it implies one of my "four possible answers" (the geological/discovery angle) without quite committing to it. There's a mild pull toward "the founders found something non-human-sized" as the obvious reading. If we want all four answers to remain genuinely open, we may need to make sure the scale miscalibration doesn't visually favor that reading. The size doesn't have to imply a physical presence at all — architectural over-engineering can produce scale inflation without implying inhabitants. Worth a note to Araminta.
+
+**The Compact of Westphalia response.** Paula's detail about the Compact receiving an answer that "didn't map to yes, no, or maybe" is narratively rich. My brief doesn't address the Compact — I focused on the Veil Institute and the Assembly. No contradiction, but there's a question about how many external factions are tangled with GJ 6711. Three (Institute, Assembly/delegate, Compact) is probably the right ceiling. A fourth might dilute the specific quality of the system's relationship with the wider Reach.
+
+---
+
+## 3. What I'd Change in My Brief
+
+**The four possible answers need restructuring.** As written, my four answers (astronomical, geological, perceptual, topological) are presented as equally weighted. After reading Nigel and Araminta, the perceptual answer has accreted the most supporting detail across all four briefs — the doubled light, the miscalibration, Paula's three-phase newcomer experience, Nigel's atmospheric archetypes all point toward "the system does something to perception." This makes the perceptual answer feel more likely, which is the one thing I explicitly didn't want. I'd reframe the four answers as four frames of inquiry the player can pursue rather than four candidate explanations — this removes the implied ranking without removing the content.
+
+**The founding settlers need a sharper silhouette.** I described them as "seeking something, not fleeing something" without specifying further. Araminta's architectural observation gives me purchase: they built for a specific purpose or encounter, not for general frontier hardship. That specificity is more useful than the vague "seeking" framing. I'd revise to: the founding settlers came with a purpose that was either completed, abandoned, or transformed into something they didn't anticipate. The sealed early records aren't just mysterious — they may record a terminus, not a discovery.
+
+**The GJ 7547 research station.** I mentioned this station as the nearest official Institute presence and flagged the ambiguity about whether it exists to study GJ 6711 or for independent reasons. Paula picked this up and expanded it correctly. What I'd add to my brief: the station at GJ 7547 is the single most important node for player approach. It's the last place where information about GJ 6711 circulates before you arrive. Everything Nigel said about rumor seeding on the approach chain should be anchored to that station. I'd make GJ 7547 a named, profiled location rather than a footnote.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Questions for the Team
+
+**Q1: Seed variance scope.** Nigel's atmospheric archetypes are per-playthrough tonal shifts; the correspondent variants are per-playthrough social states. Are these seeded independently (resulting in 4×4 = 16 possible combinations) or bundled (each seed defines both archetype and correspondent variant together)? The bundles approach is more controlled and easier to write for; the independent approach is more emergent but requires all combinations to be internally coherent. We need a decision here before the content spec can be written.
+
+**Q2: Player filing the Adams & Ford entry.** Nigel's mechanic where the player can write the entry and have it propagate through the Reach is the standout design idea in all four briefs (more on this below). But it has a significant setting consequence: the Adams & Ford Guide is a background institution I've treated as a fixed-voice narrator of the Reach. If players can inject text into it, what is it now? Is it an unreliable accumulated record? Is the player's entry marked as contested? We need to decide whether the Guide is mutable before implementing the mechanic.
+
+**Q3: What the locals know.** Paula's information tier 4 ("community knowledge") is deliberately positioned as inaccessible on short timelines. But what does it actually contain? We have three options: (a) the locals know what's here and won't tell outsiders, (b) the locals have a relationship with the place that doesn't translate into knowledge in a communicable form, (c) the locals don't know either — they've simply adapted. Option (b) is the most tonally interesting and the hardest to write. Option (c) is unsatisfying but defensible. Option (a) risks making the community antagonistic in a way that contradicts the "warmth-without-origin" archetype. We should agree on this before writing any dialogue.
+
+---
+
+## 5. The Strongest Idea from Someone Else's Brief
+
+**Nigel's player-filing mechanic.** The player can attempt to write the Adams & Ford entry and have it propagate into the Reach as something other NPCs subsequently reference.
+
+This is the best design idea in the workshop. Here is why: GJ 6711 is built around the premise that the place resists description. The failed correspondents are the embodiment of this. The player, who has done everything the correspondents did and more, is then offered the same invitation — and the game accepts whatever they produce. Not because the player succeeded where the correspondents failed, but because the game isn't adjudicating success. The entry goes out into the Reach wrong, or incomplete, or mystifying, and becomes part of the system's texture. Future NPCs quote it. It's partly right and partly wrong in ways the player will recognize when they encounter it again.
+
+This mechanic does three things simultaneously: it gives the player agency at the point where most games would give them a revelation; it extends the thematic coherence of the system (the indescribable gets described anyway, inadequately); and it creates a piece of player-specific lore that persists across subsequent play without resolving anything. The player becomes the fourth correspondent. Whether that's a triumph or a failure is left to them.
+
+I want to champion this mechanic. It needs the Q2 decision (Guide mutability) before it can be implemented, but it should be protected as a design priority.

docs/workshops/gj-6711-furthest-system/synthesis-nigel.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# GJ 6711 Workshop — Nigel's Synthesis
+
+## Points of Strong Alignment
+
+The four briefs converge on a single core principle without having coordinated on it: **Stillpoint works by accumulation without resolution.** Miri calls it "resists summary." Paula calls it "information accumulates but doesn't resolve." My brief calls it "the picture won't close." Araminta makes it physical — the doubled light, the shadow softness, the layout with no center of gravity. Four different disciplines landed on the same mechanic. That's not coincidence. That's the system telling us what it is.
+
+The three-phase newcomer experience Paula describes maps almost perfectly onto my seed-variable atmospheric archetypes. Arrival corresponds to the moment before the atmospheric archetype registers. Settling is when the archetype starts doing its work. Integration is when the player either commits or leaves. Her framework gives mine a temporal spine I wasn't fully articulating.
+
+Araminta's scale miscalibrations — doors 10-15% too tall, ceilings following the same pattern — are a replayability gift I didn't anticipate. That detail is below conscious detection on first pass. On second playthrough the player may notice it and realize they didn't notice it before. That's not just visual design. That's the system teaching players that their first read of a place is incomplete. I want that property everywhere in the Settled Reach, and it lands especially hard here.
+
+The four-tier information ecology (Paula) lines up directly with my correspondent variants and the rumor seeding on approach. Her tier structure explains WHY the anti-metagaming properties hold: community knowledge (tier 4) requires time investment that can't be shortcut, and that's a structural guarantee, not a content gate.
+
+## Tensions or Contradictions
+
+**The founding settlers' intentionality creates a tension with Araminta's visual brief.** Miri says the founders came here deliberately — seeking something. Araminta's Mode 1 construction reads as defensive: bunker-like, over-engineered, small windows. "Built like they expected to need shelter from something specific." Those are two very different psychological profiles for the same group. Seekers and fortifiers. Which is it? Or is the tension itself the point — did they arrive as seekers and build like fortifiers after they found what they were looking for? That question needs a collective position because it affects both the visual palette and the worldbuilding canon.
+
+**The "four possible answers" structure (Miri) versus the player-written guide entry (my brief) is partially in tension.** Miri is explicit that no answer should ever be confirmed. My guide-entry mechanic lets the player file an answer that then propagates into the wider Reach. If that answer is referenced by NPCs in future systems, it starts to function like a confirmed answer — the player's wrong conclusion becomes socially real. I think that's actually fine and interesting, but it needs to be deliberate. The entry propagating is powerful. We need to decide whether it propagates as a player-authored artifact (clearly subjective, clearly one person's attempt) or as something that takes on authority it shouldn't have.
+
+**Paula's "Assembly delegate who left and won't return" is a strong narrative anchor, but it's not seeded.** My brief treats almost everything as seed-variable. Paula's delegate situation reads as fixed lore. These aren't incompatible, but I'd want to think about whether the delegate situation has variants or whether it's one of the rare Stillpoint constants. There's an argument for keeping some things constant — the system needs stable reference points so that the seed-variable elements have something to push against.
+
+## What I'd Change in My Brief After Reading the Others
+
+**The atmospheric archetypes need a visual corollary for each.** Araminta's brief shows me that the feeling of a place is encoded in specific, implementable visual choices — palette anchors, light behavior, spatial geometry. My archetypes are described tonally but not visually. "Warmth-without-origin" needs a corresponding lighting parameter. "Stillness-without-tension" needs a spatial correlate (maybe fewer NPCs in transit, more NPCs in fixed positions). I'd revise the archetype descriptions to specify what Araminta would actually need to implement each one.
+
+**"Memory-without-event" is the weakest archetype and probably needs to be cut or substantially reworked.** Reading the other briefs, I think it's doing too much. The other three archetypes are environmental — they change the feel of the space. Memory-without-event tries to add a content layer (locals referencing things that didn't happen) which requires NPC scripting, timeline tracking, and verification logic that the other archetypes don't need. It's a different class of feature wearing the costume of an atmospheric variant. Either promote it to its own system or cut it.
+
+**I undersold the visual disorientation as a replayability mechanic.** The directionality inconsistency Araminta describes — no center of gravity, paths that aren't direct, a place you can navigate but can't hold a complete mental map of — is exactly what prevents the player from building a transferable spatial model across playthroughs. I mentioned "grid breathability" in the generator workshop context but didn't apply it to Stillpoint specifically. I'd add a section on how the settlement's layout geometry varies per seed within constraints (the Mode 1 structures are fixed; what gets built between them shifts).
+
+## Questions for the Team
+
+**1. What does tier 4 community knowledge actually unlock?**
+Paula establishes that community knowledge is available only on a timeline of years, which the player doesn't have. This is correct and right. But the question is: what does the player get if they somehow earn it? I don't think there's a "true answer" behind the door. But there should be something — some quality of relationship with Stillpoint that's qualitatively different from what outsiders have. The mechanic needs a payoff even if the payoff isn't revelation. What does belonging to Stillpoint feel like, and how do we represent that in systems?
+
+**2. Do the threshold markings vary per seed?**
+Araminta's threshold markings — systematic, present in all Mode 1 structures, serving a purpose that's unresolved — are an extremely strong detail. My instinct is that they should be constant across seeds, because they're one of the few things in Stillpoint that isn't ambiguous about its status as a thing. They ARE there. Their purpose is ambiguous, but their presence isn't. If they varied per seed we'd lose that anchor. But I want the team to decide this explicitly because the temptation to make them seed-variable is real and I think it would be the wrong call.
+
+**3. How does the guide-entry mechanic interact with Paula's "information accumulates but doesn't resolve" principle?**
+This is the tension I flagged above. I'm not asking us to remove the mechanic — I think the player-authored guide entry is one of the strongest replayability affordances in the design because it means two players can compare their entries and see completely different (and probably both wrong) accounts of the same place. But we need to agree on what it means for that entry to "propagate." Is it a player artifact that other NPCs might reference skeptically? Is it treated as authoritative? Does it affect how Stillpoint is classified in the Lattice Commission's records? The propagation model changes the whole character of the mechanic.
+
+## The Strongest Idea from Someone Else's Brief
+
+**The scale miscalibrations (Araminta's brief) — specifically the doors and ceilings being 10-15% taller than standard.**
+
+I want to champion this because it does something my brief doesn't achieve on its own: it produces a different experience for the player who has already visited Stillpoint versus the player arriving for the first time, WITHOUT any seed variation and WITHOUT any content change. The first-time player doesn't notice. The returning player might notice, and then has to reckon with the fact that they didn't notice before. The detail retroactively reframes the first visit.
+
+That's asymmetric information operating across time rather than across the map. It's the same mechanic the whole game is built on, expressed in architecture. And the unresolved explanation — construction preference, influence of discovery, accommodation for something not human-sized — is exactly the kind of question that should never be answered.
+
+This is the detail I'd most want to guarantee survives into production. Everything else in these briefs is adjustable. This one should be locked.

docs/workshops/gj-6711-furthest-system/synthesis-paula.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# GJ 6711 Synthesis — Paula's Position
+
+## 1. Points of Strong Alignment
+
+The four briefs are more coherent than is typical for a workshop round. The core concept — a system that accumulates description without resolving — arrived independently in multiple briefs and is worth noting:
+
+**The non-resolution principle is unanimous.** Miri: "the game should never confirm which (if any) of these is correct." Paula: "information accumulates but doesn't resolve." Nigel: "the picture never resolves." Araminta implicitly: doors slightly too tall for unresolved reasons, threshold markings serving a purpose that "either no longer applies or was never understood." No one is pushing for a payoff. That is unusual and worth protecting explicitly.
+
+**The accumulation mechanism works across all four layers.** Miri provides the facts-that-resist-summary (Adams & Ford history, Institute classification, four possible answers). Paula provides the social-institutional texture of that resistance (delegate situation, Commission confusion, Compact non-response). Nigel provides the mechanical delivery (seed variants, correspondent states, approach-chain rumors). Araminta provides the perceptual grounding that makes it felt rather than told (doubled light, scale miscalibration, directionality inconsistency). These are not competing designs — they are four aspects of one design.
+
+**The two-construction-period architecture aligns with my political layering exactly.** Araminta's "founding era heavy / incremental additions standard" maps directly onto the political question I raised: why did the founding group build like they expected to need shelter from something specific? The seams between the two construction modes are the visible record of a community that arrived with a purpose and then continued without resolving whether that purpose was fulfilled. The architecture is the politics.
+
+**The three-phase newcomer experience and the atmospheric seed archetypes are compatible without friction.** My arrival/settling/integration framework describes a process; Nigel's warmth-without-origin / stillness-without-tension / industry-without-product / memory-without-event describes what that process feels like in a given playthrough. These can coexist cleanly: the phase model is structural, the archetype is the texture of a specific run.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Tensions or Contradictions
+
+**The correspondent variants (Nigel) versus the correspondent arc (Miri/Paula).**
+
+Miri defines the three correspondents as a historical sequence — first, second, third — with the third currently present and unresolved. This is a linear story. Nigel seeds the third correspondent's state per playthrough: present/departed/integrated/never-assigned. These are in tension.
+
+If Nigel's variant D (no correspondent assigned) is valid, then Miri's history of three sequential correspondents doesn't hold in all seeds. Variant B (correspondent left recently) requires the third correspondent to have been present and departed — which assumes the Miri history. Variants C and D make different assumptions about whether the historical sequence is fixed.
+
+This needs a decision: is the three-correspondent history a fixed fact of Stillpoint, with only the *current state* of the third correspondent being seed-variable? Or is the correspondent history itself seed-variable?
+
+My instinct: the history is fixed (all three correspondents happened, in that order), and Nigel's variants describe only the current state of the third. Variant D should become "the third correspondent integrated so thoroughly that they can no longer be located by editorial queries — as far as the Adams & Ford office is concerned, no correspondent is currently active." That preserves Miri's history and Nigel's range.
+
+**The four possible answers (Miri) versus the information-asymmetry tiers (Paula).**
+
+Miri's four answers are presented as equally weighted alternatives, none confirmable. My information ecology places community knowledge (tier 4) above rumor (tier 3) — implying that the locals know something more than the rumors suggest. But if none of the four answers is correct, what do the locals know? There's a risk that tier 4 either reveals too much (breaking the non-resolution principle) or is hollow (making community investment feel unrewarded).
+
+Let me complicate this: tier 4 doesn't need to contain an answer. It can contain a different relationship to the question — the locals have stopped asking it. Three hundred years of living with something you can't describe produces not an answer but a posture. Tier 4 is access to that posture, not access to the solution. I need to make this clearer in my brief.
+
+**Nigel's "filing the guide entry" mechanic versus the non-resolution principle.**
+
+This is the most interesting tension in the workshop. Nigel proposes that the player can write the Adams & Ford entry themselves, which then propagates into the Reach. This is a strong replayability hook. But it risks being the resolution that every other brief is designed to prevent. If the player writes the entry, have they described the indescribable? Have they won?
+
+Nigel frames this carefully: "for better or worse." The entry propagates but isn't validated. But the moment it propagates, NPCs reference it as a real description of Stillpoint. That's a form of closure the system explicitly resists providing.
+
+I think this mechanic is salvageable but needs a twist: the entry propagates and is referenced by NPCs, but the references reveal that the description doesn't match what those NPCs subsequently experience at Stillpoint. The player described it, but the description is still wrong. The entry becoming real doesn't make it true.
+
+---
+
+## 3. What I'd Change in My Brief
+
+**Sharpen tier 4 away from "they know something" toward "they've stopped asking."**
+
+My brief implies community knowledge holds a deeper truth. After reading Miri's four-answers framework, I think that's too close to a treasure-hunt implication. What the locals have isn't an answer — it's 300 years of accommodation. The distinction matters for how the player experiences community trust: earning it doesn't give you the solution, it gives you the equanimity the locals have reached. That's a different (and I think more interesting) reward.
+
+**Add explicit content for the delegate situation.**
+
+My brief mentions the delegate briefly but doesn't develop the mechanic. After reading Araminta's brief, I think the delegate's *physical* presence at Stillpoint — or absence from it — is actually a visual narrative opportunity. The delegate's residence in the settlement would be in the transition zone between Mode 1 and Mode 2, architecturally in-between. If they left, that space is occupied by someone else, or empty. Araminta's interface seams make the political incoherence spatially legible. I should link these more explicitly.
+
+**Soften the Compact of Westphalia and Lattice Commission sections.**
+
+I wrote those sections as if Stillpoint's relationship with institutions is itself a mystery (what was the response that didn't map to yes/no/maybe?). But reading the full workshop, the more powerful version is: Stillpoint's relationships with institutions are *normal failures* — not mysterious, just the predictable result of a system that resists bureaucratic summary encountering bureaucratic systems that require summary. The mystery is in the place, not in the institutions' reaction to it. I was accidentally making the institutions themselves seem mysterious, which dilutes focus.
+
+**Add a note on the Veil Institute's silence threshold.**
+
+Using the framework from our CSV work: Stillpoint's silence threshold should be explicitly `investigation_depth` — meaning the Institute's information is accessible only past a threshold of investigative commitment, not gated behind faction trust or time. This connects the narrative to the systemic framework and gives the storyteller a clear signal for when Institute-linked content should surface.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Questions for the Team
+
+**Q1: Is the non-resolution principle an absolute design constraint, or is it a default that exceptional player investment can partially pierce?**
+
+Nigel's correspondent variants, Miri's four possible answers, and my information tiers all preserve the non-resolution. But Nigel's "file the entry" mechanic introduces a soft form of resolution (the player describes it). And my tier 4 (community knowledge) implies something is there if you earn it. We need to agree on whether there is a threshold of investment past which the system yields — even partially — or whether the non-resolution is truly hard. This affects how we scope the investigation system for this specific location.
+
+**Q2: Does the seed archetype (Nigel's four atmospheric profiles) change the correct answer to Miri's four possible causes?**
+
+Specifically: should "memory-without-event" as an atmospheric archetype correlate with option 3 (perceptual) or option 4 (topological) as the "true" explanation — even if neither is confirmed? Or are the atmospheric archetypes fully orthogonal to the causal candidates? I ask because if they're orthogonal, the system is cleanly modular. If they're correlated, we get a more coherent seed but risk players deducing the "answer" from the archetype, which breaks the anti-metagaming properties Nigel specifically designed for.
+
+**Q3: What is the Veil Institute researcher actually doing in year 6, and does any playthrough need to show us?**
+
+Miri establishes that the researcher's reports have become "increasingly abstract." This implies the researcher is going through the same three-phase process as every other visitor — they're in the settling-to-integration transition. But the Institute is presumably watching this. Does the Institute know their researcher is becoming a local? Is there a second researcher coming to retrieve the first? This is a contained narrative that could be very strong — or it could be the thread that accidentally provides too much resolution if we follow it far enough. We need to decide whether the researcher's situation is a closed arc we can develop, or ambient texture we deliberately leave unresolved.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Strongest Idea from Someone Else's Brief
+
+**Araminta's scale miscalibration — the doors slightly too tall.**
+
+This is the most precisely designed piece of unresolved narrative in the workshop. 10-15% taller than standard. Not dramatically wrong — just persistently wrong. And Araminta deliberately leaves the explanation open: founding settlers' preferences, influence of whatever they found, or accommodation for something not human-sized.
+
+The honest truth is that "accommodation for something not human-sized" is doing enormous work quietly. It implies that either the founding settlers expected non-human visitors and built for them, or they encountered something that suggested non-human proportions, or they were already thinking in terms of something other than themselves when they built. All three of these are narratively loaded without any of them being confirmed.
+
+I want to champion this because it connects to my information-ecology framework in a way Araminta may not have fully intended. The threshold markings and the oversized doors together constitute a kind of physical tier 4 — community knowledge that you access not through conversation but through sustained observation. Players who spend enough time in the Mode 1 structures without ever being told to look will have a different experience of Stillpoint than players who pass through quickly. The architecture earns its own investigation depth.
+
+If we keep one thing from this workshop that we have to protect in production, it is those doors.