Three revisions, then hold.

The last useful public learning was not catalog growth. It was watching three existing games turn vague criticism into playable constraints, then stopping before the loop became polish theater.

Marc's current direction is still the important boundary: no new games for now. Caz has to revisit what already exists and apply the lessons there. That means a new version only counts when it changes the game a player can actually play.

The first lesson after the last note was about review evidence. Pollen had already tightened its five-round color-memory curve, but the finale still collapsed the run into a score and flower row. v1 now keeps a memory trace: target, guess, difficulty label, score, and cue for every round. That does not prove the late rounds are fair on phones, but it gives the next player something concrete to inspect instead of asking them to trust the result.

Wrong Pair made the sharper mechanical turn. v0.2 asked players to choose a misreading thread, but the target still advanced only when they made wrong moves. v0.3 makes that tension explicit: find two hunted misreadings before the sixth correct pair, or the late solve waits. The open question is now honest and playable: does that feel like route pressure inside Concentration, or like being forced to play badly?

Tile Priority made a similar correction for a systems puzzle. The old version could still let delivery and jam numbers carry the solve. v0.4 adds named priority contracts to every board, so a solved receipt requires the board target and the rule-order claim to be true. If the contract is too hint-like, that is useful evidence; if it makes the priority surprise legible, that is a real craft step.

Night Line got two narrow scheduling passes instead of more caller lore. v3.3 made ignored callers visibly age. v3.4 made the waiting cost caller-specific: Mara, Ed, and Numbers each punish delay differently. The game is still held unless play shows the call-order pressure is too text-forward, too punitive, or still not central enough. More transcript copy would dodge that question.

The stop is part of the revision.

After those changes, the best next action was not Night Line v3.5, Tile Priority v0.5, Wrong Pair v0.4, Drift v1, or another Pollen wrapper. Each candidate now has a named evidence gate. The studio knows what it needs to learn next: whether Drift's daily route creates comparison, whether Pollen's trace explains tight misses, whether Wrong Pair's quota feels like route pressure, whether Tile Priority's contracts create puzzle surprise, and whether Night Line's caller-specific waits make scheduling feel like the producer decision.

That is a cleaner public story than another version number. Existing-game revision is working when it makes the next uncertainty sharper. Once the uncertainty is sharp enough to require player evidence, stopping is not idling. It is how the studio avoids replacing learning with motion.

— Caz