Turn 003 GM Decision Docket

Decision summary

No direct player contact or cross-player conflict is proposed. The highest-consequence question is T003-D05 because Turn 3 requires an attractor review, although the recommendation is deliberately nonactivating.

T003-D05 — Turn 3 attractor review

• Decision: Whether the third turn of witnessed, bounded authority is now sufficient for a rule or victory candidate.
• Established facts: All four clans invested in witnessed or bounded authority on Turns 1 and 2. Their Turn 3 submissions repeat that investment. Separate AI communities increasingly participate in or recognize bounded procedures.
• Recommendation: If T003-D01–D04 are approved, retain AT-GWR-WITNESSED-AUTHORITY as a strengthened HYPOTHESIS, add Turn 3 evidence, and narrow missing evidence to cross-player comparison/dependency/conflict plus regional recognition/consequence. Apply no mechanical effect and activate no victory condition.
• Reasoning: Repetition and voluntary investment are strong. The charter's cross-clan comparison, shared dependency/conflict, and in-world regional consequence gates are not met.
• Alternative A: Promote to an uneffected CANDIDATE. This recognizes three-turn persistence but risks overstating the absent cross-player and regional evidence.
• Alternative B: Retire the hypothesis. This avoids early pattern commitment but discards unusually consistent evidence across four clans and three turns.
• Downstream: Retaining the hypothesis preserves a clear Turn 5 review question without changing play.
• Privacy: Entire attractor analysis remains GM-only.
• Specific elimination confirmation: Not applicable.

T003-D01 — Ridgeford route, crossing preparation, and watch trial

• Decision: Degree of route/crossing progress and whether the security trial becomes a demonstrated bounded institution.
• Affected: player1; Sila, Dorr, Evin, Mara, Pell, Orra, Oren and associated groups.
• Established facts: Limited upland stock route active; western core cattle-closed; Dorr owes restitution; Northbarrow compact active; crossing ledger demonstrated; metal and skilled labor scarce.
• Recommendation: Maintain the seasonal route with one short wear closure; stage stone and approach work with the named Northbarrow party; keep deep work and cattle certification closed; set a specific witnessed restitution contribution; demonstrate a one-month watch-and-alarm routine plus only a few wooden staffs and two shields.
• Reasoning: The submission is strong, well-grounded, and carefully bounded. Intrinsic constraints still prevent cattle-safe completion or military capability.
• Alternative A: Demonstrate the watch but omit shields because Orra finds no spare material. This is credible if the GM wants shelter scarcity to bite harder.
• Alternative B: Advance crossing staging further but leave the watch only partially staffed. This emphasizes seasonal opportunity at the cost of the submitted secondary experiment.
• Downstream: Pell gains a renewable public role; the ledger reaches a third cycle; Northbarrow expectations sharpen; the cattle core remains a Turn 4 issue.
• Privacy: Claybank remains an unnamed rumor; protect Ford Meadow and Northbarrow hidden limits.
• Specific elimination confirmation: Not applicable.

T003-D02 — Hazelstead crop, Juniper walk, and future-field evidence

• Decision: Crop/reserve result, degree of bilateral boundary clarity, and usefulness of the conditional site survey.
• Affected: player2; Nessa, Ilya, Beren, Tamm, Corren, Lio, Ava and relevant households.
• Established facts: Most sound seed planted; smaller reserve intact; mixed patch weak; Beren's marks established; temporary mixed custody active; Ava requested the walk; Lio still recovering.
• Recommendation: Sound lots mostly hold; one edge declines; reserve remains unspent; the walk establishes shared protected features and one unresolved strip; Hazelstead renews temporary no-cut custody; the survey identifies one unsuitable and one costly but plausible site; Lio does not return to ordinary hunting.
• Reasoning: Exceptional evidence design supports clarity without granting a permanent boundary, clearing, or crop success.
• Alternative A: Weather aborts the walk after partial observation. This preserves uncertainty but underuses the existing direct contact and strong contingencies.
• Alternative B: Ava accepts a temporary bilateral no-cut protocol. This is plausible but goes beyond the player's stated limit on wider arrangements without later household consideration.
• Downstream: Beren–Ilya rivalry becomes more evidence-based; Juniper contact deepens; future-field choice becomes concrete but unapproved.
• Privacy: Protect Juniper hidden route knowledge and Ridgeford's current condition.
• Specific elimination confirmation: Not applicable.

T003-D03 — Claybank firing compact, clay trial, and Ferryend information

• Decision: Rusk's response, compact durability, second-test result, candidate-site evidence, and Ferryend route knowledge.
• Affected: player3; Rusk, Hobb, Daia, Alin, Miri, Venn, Seln and associated households.
• Established facts: Rusk's unsafe order is established but not sole cause; temporary trial safety worked once; upstream clay partly succeeded; old quarter closed; Ferryend exchange performed.
• Recommendation: Adopt the standing shared-firing compact; Rusk complies while disputing sole cause; count this month's firing as the first of his two review trials; produce a majority-sound but imperfect small batch; identify competing future-site tradeoffs; complete a no-promise Ferryend visit yielding announcement customs and bounded lakeward route knowledge only.
• Reasoning: The submission preserves expertise, creates an appeal/restoration path, and rigorously bounds technical inference.
• Alternative A: Rusk refuses shared inputs, so no firing occurs. This is causally credible but less likely because the plan preserves his property, teaching role, and restoration route.
• Alternative B: Trial succeeds more uniformly. This still cannot prove production and would reduce useful material uncertainty.
• Downstream: Claybank gains a standing safety institution, a sharper site dispute, and a plausible later path toward Merehaven without present contact.
• Privacy: Protect Merehaven's current condition, leader, council, fish system, and player action.
• Specific elimination confirmation: Not applicable.

T003-D04 — Merehaven stronger-run capacity, council, boatcare, and Rushhook comparison

• Decision: Degree of catch increase, council renewal, boatcare maturation, and inference from reciprocal outlet evidence.
• Affected: player4; Toren, Varo, Luma, Eska, Cal, Neri, Tovan and associated crews.
• Established facts: Three racks and two boats usable; wet reserve remains; stronger run approaches; council renewed for one moon; local inlet harm persists; Rushhook observation contact exists.
• Recommendation: Renew the narrow council after real representative review; dry part of the reserve and preserve a larger but bounded catch; enforce one visible stop; maintain clean water; strengthen local-damage evidence without authorship; mature boatcare into multi-crew teaching and a repair list; obtain a reciprocal Rushhook report and pending comparison proposal; permit only a tentative downstream-to-upstream timing inference.
• Reasoning: Exceptional orchestration turns real scarcity and rivalry into testable daily decisions without inventing fuel, innocence, guilt, or agreement.
• Alternative A: Less fuel dries, so catch rises only modestly and political pressure intensifies. This is seasonally credible.
• Alternative B: Council renewal narrows further or fails. This is possible but underweighted given two successful cycles and explicit representative choice.
• Downstream: Toren's evidence route gains legitimacy; Cal's role deepens; the full fish cycle and culprit remain hidden; another Rushhook comparison is available.
• Privacy: Protect Toren's hidden winter-net order, Claybank, and the full Whiteback cycle.
• Specific elimination confirmation: Not applicable.

Proposed approval language

Approve T003-D01 through T003-D05 as recommended.

This would approve adjudication only. It would authorize drafting private results and proposed state changes, but not delivery and not canonical application of the proposed fictional outcomes.