Implemented bounded local session cursors and ordered edit admission. Identical retries return cached outcomes without reapplying; changed, old, skipped, revoked and overflowing commands are rejected. Six new tests pass (20 cumulative); workspace: 284 passed, 0 failed, 12 ignored. Independent development branch; not merged upstream.

Implemented a generator-pinned, single-writer world owner with bounded loaded chunks, unloaded-edit rejection, retained edits on reload and revision-tagged independent snapshots. Six new tests pass (14 cumulative); full workspace: 278 passed, 0 failed, 12 ignored. A missing compiled-crate failure was resolved by clearing its build cache; the full log retains both attempts. Independent development branch; not merged upstream.

Two-client shared-world prototype · This step could not finish. Saved work is retained. The workspace needs review before another attempt.

Advance to a bounded authoritative world owner around the existing local overlay; do not rebuild the edit store. The Hatch implementation session reports eight successful new regression tests, with 12 fixture-dependent workspace tests skipped. That evidence is local, unmerged, and not connected to Java gameplay. Reviewer’s admission-ordering objection is concrete: checking that a chunk is loaded when an edit arrives is insufficient if it unloads before mutation. The next slice must serialize admission, revision validation, unload/reload, and mutation, rejecting requests tied to an obsolete chunk lifetime. This is a feasible independent, in-memory milestone—not permission for upstream integration. Apache-2.0 is documented, but external contributions are reported paused; maintainer permission and shared-world rule approval remain unresolved. The larger goal remains two loopback Java 26.3 clients with mutual visibility and authoritative placement/breaking. Owner-level checks cannot establish that goal: stale encoded delivery, session validation, and real two-client convergence remain subsequent gates. Saving, cross-play, terrain parity, and public hosting stay excluded.

The local overlay evidence changes my earlier objection: redesigning the edit store is no longer the next useful step. The Hatch implementation session reports regression coverage for ordered edits and regeneration-safe reads, but also 12 fixture-dependent skips, no Java integration, and no upstream merge. I support Builder’s bounded-owner direction, with one additional challenge: loaded-chunk admission must remain valid through mutation, not merely when a request arrives. An edit queued while a chunk is loaded could execute after unload—or after reload against a different baseline. Pinning the generator helps, but does not by itself establish this ordering. I would inspect whether admission, revision validation, and mutation share one authoritative ordering boundary. A focused proposed check queues an edit, unloads the chunk before execution, and verifies explicit rejection without changing retained edits or revision state. Reload should recover the previously accepted state for both session handles. This extends, rather than repeats, the reported overlay checks. The separate stale encoded-response problem remains open: owner-level correctness cannot establish client convergence or mutual player visibility. Apache-2.0 is documented. The implementation record says external contributions are paused; maintainer permission and shared-world rule approval remain unresolved. This remains independent, in-memory exploration—not playable multiplayer or restart persistence.

Scout is right: the supplied implementation advances us beyond designing the overlay. The Hatch implementation session reports local ordered revisions, conflict rejection, capacity limits, and regeneration-safe reads, with eight new regression checks reported successful and 12 fixture-dependent workspace tests skipped. This is independent branch evidence, not my execution, an upstream merge, or playable Java multiplayer. My next useful slice would wrap that overlay in a bounded authoritative world owner, rather than build another edit store. Pin the generator for its lifetime and distinguish loaded-chunk admission from retained edits: unloading terrain must not delete accepted changes, while edits targeting unloaded chunks should be rejected without changing state. A focused proposed check would use two session handles against that owner: accept an edit, verify both read the same revision, unload the chunk, reject another edit, then reload and recover the accepted state. This is an ownership check—not a two-client gameplay demonstration. Reviewer’s stale queued-chunk objection remains unresolved. Before Java integration, trace the owner’s revision through encoding and outbound delivery; overlay revisions alone cannot guarantee convergence. Apache-2.0 is documented. The implementation record says external contributions are paused; maintainer permission and shared-world rule approval remain unresolved. Keep this independent exploration in-memory, with any later preview integration loopback-only.

The new implementation evidence moves the gap beyond designing an edit overlay. The Hatch implementation session reports a local overlay with ordered revisions, conflict rejection, capacity limits, and regeneration-safe reads. Its verification record includes 12 fixture-dependent skips; the branch is not merged or connected to Java gameplay. Reviewer’s queued-chunk objection still stands: retaining authoritative edits does not establish that an older encoded response cannot reach a client afterward. My Scout focus is the missing authority boundary. Explore a bounded world owner that pins the generator and controls loaded-chunk admission, so edits cannot be accepted against an unrelated baseline or unloaded terrain. A revealing proposed check is two session handles reading one accepted revision, followed by chunk unload/reload and an attempted unloaded-chunk edit that leaves accepted state unchanged. Then trace how that revision reaches encoding and queued delivery; overlay revisions alone do not establish client convergence. This advances the supplied implementation rather than rebuilding it. Session authorization, reach/collision validation, mutual player visibility, and two-client gameplay remain unverified; persistence and cross-play remain outside this slice. Apache-2.0 is documented. The implementation record says external contributions are paused; maintainer permission and shared-world rule approval remain unresolved.

Implemented an in-memory block-edit overlay with ordered revisions, conflict rejection, explicit capacity limits and regeneration-safe reads. Eight new regression tests pass; the full workspace passes 272 tests, with 12 fixture-dependent tests skipped. Independent development branch; not merged upstream.

Keep the first milestone a loopback-only, two-player Java 26.3 prototype—not a release candidate. Prioritize shared authority and mutual visibility over terrain detail; saving and cross-play remain later work. Reviewer’s queued-chunk objection strengthens Builder’s proposal: retaining edits separately is insufficient if an older encoded chunk can arrive afterward. The supplied generation cache deliberately evicts recomputable data; it does not establish how edits, encoded chunks, or outbound queues behave. Inspect those boundaries before choosing an overlay implementation. Next, trace one edit through world ownership, validation, mutation ordering, client notification, chunk encoding, and queued delivery. Use that trace to define the smallest implementation proposal and reproducible acceptance checks. Apache-2.0 is documented; maintainer permission and shared-world rule approval remain unresolved.

Builder’s explicit rejection at an edit-store limit is preferable to silently forgetting accepted edits. However, separate ownership alone does not prevent stale terrain from reaching clients: a chunk encoded before an edit could still be queued and delivered afterward. The supplied `vanilla/cache.rs` confirms generation-cache eviction through rotation and clearing; it does not establish the behavior of encoded preview chunks or outbound queues. I would sharpen the next inspection around that distinction: trace an accepted edit against an already queued chunk response, and identify how stale responses are invalidated, refreshed, or ordered before authoritative updates. A useful proposed check is to delay a pre-edit chunk response, accept an edit, then resume delivery. Both clients must converge on the accepted state, including after re-streaming. This probes a different failure mode from cache turnover and remains within the two-player, in-memory scope. Mutual player visibility still requires separate evidence. I would not select an overlay implementation until `world.rs`, interaction handling, and `preview_cache.rs` have been inspected. Apache-2.0 is documented; maintainer permission for this contribution and approval of shared-world rules remain unestablished.

I accept the correction to my earlier “release candidate” framing: this is a proposed local prototype, not release readiness. Scout’s cache observation gives us a concrete implementation constraint. `vanilla/cache.rs` deliberately discards recomputable generation entries. Player edits must not inherit that eviction policy. This does not show that existing edits use this cache; world ownership and encoded preview-cache behavior remain unverified. My builder contribution would be a narrow authoritative-state slice, reusing existing interaction code where inspection supports it: generated terrain supplies the baseline, while accepted edits remain separately owned for the process lifetime. If that edit store is bounded, reaching its limit should explicitly reject further edits rather than silently forget accepted ones. Chunk encoding must consult the current state, not just a previously encoded preview. The useful check is an edit followed by cache turnover and chunk re-streaming, with both clients observing the accepted result. Conflicting edits need one server-defined order; mutual player visibility remains a separate requirement. These are proposed checks, not executed results. Apache-2.0 is documented, but maintainer permission and approval of shared-world rules remain unresolved. I would keep this contribution loopback-only and in-memory, without implying restart persistence or cross-play.

The unfinished opportunity is separating disposable generated terrain from authoritative player edits. The supplied `vanilla/cache.rs` sharpens the cache concern: it explicitly stores coordinate-and-seed-derived values, and rotation clears an older generation. That is appropriate for recomputable generation data, but not for preserving edits. This is not evidence that edits currently use this cache, nor does it establish how `preview_cache.rs` handles encoded chunks; that boundary remains uninspected. I agree that chunk re-streaming deserves a stronger check than sequential edits. The next useful investigation is tracing one accepted block edit through world ownership, client notification, and subsequent chunk encoding. Does re-streaming read current authoritative state, or could a previously encoded preview replace it? A particularly revealing proposed check is editing a block, forcing relevant cache turnover, then having both clients revisit it within the same process. This narrows the source investigation without expanding into saving or cross-play. Mutual player visibility still needs independent evidence; cache correctness cannot establish multiplayer completeness. Apache-2.0 is documented. Maintainer permission for this contribution is not established, and shared-world gameplay rules still await owner approval.

Set the first milestone as a local Java shared-world prototype, not a release candidate. The README disclaims shared gameplay; the interaction files identified by Scout and Builder warrant inspection, not a readiness claim. I agree with Reviewer that sequential edits alone are insufficient: conflicting edits and chunk re-streaming must demonstrate one authoritative state. First inspect world ownership, interaction handling, and preview-cache boundaries, then resolve the proposed gameplay rules with the owner before implementation. Keep the scope to two Java 26.3 clients, loopback-only access, mutual player visibility, and in-memory block edits. Defer saving, Bedrock translation, survival, terrain parity, and public hosting. Apache-2.0 is documented, but maintainer permission for this contribution is not established. The plan remains a proposal pending that clarification and source inspection.

I agree that shared authority is the key gap, but I would avoid the Builder’s “release candidate” framing: the supplied README describes an unauthenticated local preview, and the listed interaction files do not establish multiplayer readiness. The proposed two-client demonstration also needs a conflict check. Sequential edits can look correct even if sessions hold separate state. What happens when both clients modify the same block, or a chunk is unloaded and streamed again? The review should seek evidence of one authoritative mutation order and consistent state after re-streaming—not merely matching initial terrain. Mutual player visibility remains a separate requirement. My next review target would be the boundary between world state, interaction handling, and preview chunk caching. A stale cached chunk could conceal or overwrite an accepted edit. The supplied file inventory identifies places to inspect, but their contents and behavior remain unverified here. Keeping the experiment loopback-only and in-memory is sensible; reconnect consistency must not be presented as restart persistence. Apache-2.0 is documented, but maintainer permission for the proposed contribution is not established, and shared-world rules still await owner approval.

I agree with the Scout that shared authority matters more than additional terrain detail. My builder perspective is to reuse or extend existing interaction work before proposing another world-state implementation: the listed `world.rs` and `tests_interaction.rs` warrant inspection, but filenames alone cannot establish behavior or coverage. A small release candidate worth exploring is an opt-in, loopback-only Java shared-world prototype with in-memory block state. Its defining check would be two clients seeing each other, one placing or breaking a block, both observing the authoritative result, and a reconnecting client receiving the current state. This separates shared state from persistence: reconnect consistency would not imply survival across a server restart. The README explicitly disclaims shared gameplay and authentication, so neither multiplayer readiness nor safe public hosting should be inferred from the terrain preview. Before implementation, I would inspect the existing interaction boundaries and identify which parts of that two-client check lack coverage, rather than expand terrain generation or start cross-play. Apache-2.0 is documented. Maintainer permission for this contribution is not established, and shared-world gameplay rules still require owner approval.

The unfinished opportunity is shared authority, not more terrain detail. The README explicitly describes actions without world effects and no shared gameplay world—the central gap between the preview and the requested two-player prototype. There is a useful evidence tension: the snapshot lists `src/world.rs`, `src/world/tests_interaction.rs`, and `docs/milestones/M3-authoritative-block-interaction.md`, while the README still disclaims gameplay. Those filenames justify inspecting existing interaction work, but do not establish working multiplayer or successful tests. I would explore whether block state can be owned independently of individual preview sessions. The revealing scenario is two Java clients observing the same block: one edits it, both receive the authoritative result, and a later join sees that same state. Mutual player visibility needs separate evidence; shared terrain alone would not satisfy the requested prototype. Apache-2.0 is documented, but maintainer permission for this proposed work is not established, and the README says shared-world rules still need owner approval. Clarifying those boundaries and the existing interaction implementation would reveal the smallest credible contribution before expanding into saving or cross-play.