This site is an instrument

The working standard for everything below: this site should show its confidence without making you pay an evidence tax to read it. The reasoning, the status of a claim and the sources sit one click away in a drawer rather than in the middle of the sentence — there when you want to audit us, out of the way when you came here to find something out.

A map projection distorts the globe; you choose the projection for the journey you are making and you keep track of the distortion. This is the same. The game frame makes some things visible that plain life-language hides: it separates a decision from its outcome, so you can have played well and still lost; it makes costs legible, especially the invisible ones — slack, attention, the credit in a relationship; and it lets you talk about yourself as a system without it curdling into self-blame. The price is real: an instrument you look through for long enough stops being something you look through and becomes the way things look. That is not a risk to be managed away. It is the cost of the position, and naming it is part of using it honestly.

Two editions, and when the frame is set down

The same facts are written in two vocabularies. Standard uses plain reflective language; Game Guide uses strategy-guide language. They are two ways of speaking over one underlying model — switching between them never changes a claim or a conclusion, and you keep your place. Not every idea gets a game translation, and any game term is defined in plain words the first time a page uses it.

Some pages put the frame away entirely. Grief, a death, depression, abuse, and the help-now page render with no game metaphor, no ratings, no ornament, in either edition — because some situations are not made clearer by being taken apart, and applying the apparatus there would only produce the appearance of understanding at a cost to someone already being handled a great deal. You can also turn the framing down everywhere yourself, with the control at the top of the page; it reduces the vocabulary and the chrome, never the content.

Setting the frame down is not the same as setting the evidence down. A page with the frame down may still carry an evidence label — Illustrative, Our judgement, Researched — and may not carry a game term. The two prohibitions are different in kind. Game vocabulary goes away because taking a bereavement apart produces the appearance of understanding at a cost to someone already being handled a great deal. The evidence label stays because a page about grief is exactly where a reader is most likely to have been handed a folk model as a fact, and marking it as folk belief is the one correction that most protects them; withholding it would protect the register at the reader’s expense. Applying the rule to the five pages under clinical and specialist review waits for that review — those pages are unchanged, and nothing was labelled on them here.

Where this site is allowed to be funny

Some things really are absurd, and writing about them with a straight face is its own kind of dishonesty. Renewing a passport, contesting a parking notice, and the average telephone menu are not tragedies, and a page that pretends otherwise is not being respectful — it is being inaccurate.

So a comic register is permitted on bureaucracy-shaped pages: guides to processes, forms and queues, where the comedy is aimed at the process and never at the person stuck in it. And it is banned on every set-down route and every loss-adjacent one — a bereavement, a death, low mood, being hurt, the help-now page, the page for a day with nothing left in it, and the page about a relationship ending, which is not set down but is read by someone who has just lost something. The rule is declared per page in the route inventory, not left to whoever is writing; the build checks that nothing declared comic is set down or loss-adjacent, and refuses if it is.

No page in this version is flagged comic. The rule and its check ship first, so that the first bureaucracy guide inherits a boundary rather than negotiating one.

The model underneath, in one screen

You never have to meet this to use the site — every page speaks plainly first. But for the curious, the content is typed against a small model, which is what lets both editions render from one source and keeps future growth coherent. Readers meet these as ordinary questions.

Resources

what you have to spend — time, money, energy, attention, health, skill, standing, slack

States / conditions

what condition you are in, which changes what everything else costs

Skills

what you can reliably do, and how cheaply

Relationships

the people around you, and what runs between you

Environments / institutions

the systems you are inside — a labour market, a family, a bureaucracy

Constraints

what is genuinely not movable, versus a wall you have not found the door in

Goals / horizons

what you are aiming at, including the aims you never chose on purpose

Moves

what you can actually do from where you stand, and what each costs

Events

what happens to you that you did not choose

Uncertainty

what you genuinely cannot know — kept separate from what you simply have not looked up

Outcomes

how it turns out — which is a different object from the decision that preceded it

era (fixed: United States · 2025)
   │
   ▼
household & class  ──tilts──►  family stability
                   ──tilts──►  body & health
                   ──tilts──►  local environment

1  consequences that have come due
2  scheduled events
3  the actions you committed, in the order you committed them
4  events from the people in your life, and from chance
5  season-end bookkeeping
     · standing commitments tick down
     · people you have not been in touch with notice
     · maintenance debt accrues or clears
     · the queue ages

How evidence works here

Every claim that carries weight is marked with one of three statuses:

• Illustrative — a worked example or demonstration fixture, labelled where it appears. It shows the shape of a thing; it is not a measured finding, and any numbers in it are examples, not data.
• Our judgement — the site’s reasoned synthesis, shown with its reasoning rather than a citation. Most of the explanatory writing here is this.
• Researched — rests on at least one recorded source. Almost nothing in this preview claims this status except the hotline numbers, each of which was checked against its official source on 2026-09-04, and the timeline’s milestone records, each of which carries the page it was read from.

Evidence-bearing pages carry a drawer with the status, what would change the claim, and — where the page leans on the model — one honest sentence about where the frame fails. Dated claims carry an “as of” stamp, because a claim about a moving target without a date is a claim pretending not to have an expiry. “No recommendation” and “not enough evidence” are treated as successful outputs, always paired with what would reduce the uncertainty. No statistic, probability, dose, or hotline number is invented; where a research finding is real but its size varies, the finding is used without a number.

Nine reasons something can be the popular choice

Whenever this site compares options, it refuses to name an overall winner, and the reason is worth having as a habit of your own. “Best” is not one thing, and the most common choice is not necessarily the strongest one. Before treating popularity as evidence of quality, check whether it is instead:

• Availability — it is what was in front of most people, and the alternatives were somewhere else.
• Marketing — more was spent telling people about it than about anything better.
• Habit — it is what people already used, and switching required a reason.
• Bundling — it arrived attached to something else that was chosen for other reasons.
• Network effects — its value comes from other people using it, which is real but is not quality.
• Switching costs — leaving is expensive, so staying looks like preference.
• Placement — it was at eye level, at the top of the list, first in the results.
• A low price at the start — cheap to begin and dearer to keep, which is a different offer from cheap.
• Quality — which is on the list, and is one of nine.

The same nine explain a crowded degree, a standard career path, a city everyone is moving to and a piece of advice everybody repeats. None of them makes the popular option wrong. What they do is stop “most people do this” from finishing the argument.

How the timeline was sourced

The timeline carries 122 records across 8 lanes, resting on 153 sources. It works on one rule, and the rule is stricter than it sounds: a number that was not read on a page fetched while this build was being made is an invented number. Nothing here was typed from memory, from a prior version of this project, or from another site’s summary.

Every figure traces to a source record holding the page’s address, the date we fetched it, and a verbatim excerpt of at most twenty-five words containing the figure. You can open that excerpt on any record, in the evidence drawer, and read the sentence we read.

The order we trusted sources in

1. Official statistical agencies and rule-setters — the Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics, the Social Security Administration, and the statutes and regulations themselves.
2. Professional bodies and peer-reviewed sources for windows in bodies — cited for the range and the population it was measured in, never for advice.
3. Reputable secondary sources, disclosed as such, with the primary named where the secondary cites one.
4. Never as a sole source: encyclopedias, blogs, listicles, milestone content-farms, machine-generated summaries, or anything this project itself has written.

What we ended up with: 69 Official statistics · 57 Statute or agency rule · 19 Reputable secondary · 8 Peer-reviewed.

How it was checked

Records were written in batches by one process and then handed to a separate one whose only instruction was to find violations, and which was given the written records but never the reasoning behind them. It re-fetched every source address and checked that the excerpt is actually on the page, that it is verbatim rather than a paraphrase, that every figure in the record appears inside that excerpt, and that the claim does not say more than the source does.

It found things. Across the first eight batches it raised seventeen blocking defects — among them an age that appeared in no excerpt at all, a sentence about a vote in 1787 quoted as though it stated present law, a rule that varies by circumstance flattened into one age, and a survey’s age brackets mistaken for the ages at which people did the thing. Each one was repaired, or the record was demoted to “not yet sourced”, before it reached the page. The whole record of that process ships with the build.

Five kinds of expectation, and two we refuse to carry

“You’re expected to have done this by now” hides at least five different claims with wildly different standing. The timeline separates them and labels every record with which one it is:

A window in a body (15)

a range bodies commonly move through — wide, and wider than most people think

A rule with an age in it (35)

a rule, not a norm: this is the one kind of age that is actually a line

An institution's schedule (6)

a schedule an institution keeps — and institutions have side doors

A common pattern (46)

common in the stated population; common is not required

Something people say (20)

an expectation is a thing said to you, not a fact about you

Two more kinds exist in the world and are excluded from this timeline by its own type system, which means they cannot be written here even by accident: strategic recommendations (what would be a smart move) and personal targets (what you have decided you want). Strategy lives on the guidance pages, where it is labelled as advice. Personal targets are yours and the site has no business holding an opinion about them. A record here may describe what tends to follow from doing something earlier or later; it may never tell you when to do it.

Why you almost never see a percentage

Ages and windows render as ages. Rates do not render on the timeline at all — not on the spine, not in a year card. A proportion appears only inside an evidence drawer, next to the sentence it came from, as an absolute figure. Where the surface needs to say how common something is, it uses a word from a published table rather than a number:

Those thresholds are our choice, not a standard. They are published here so you can disagree with them, and a relative figure never appears without its absolute base beside it.

There is no average person on the timeline

Every window on this page stands on its own population and its own source. They do not compose into one life. Nobody is the person who does all of these things at all of these ages, and the median age of one thing tells you nothing about the median age of the next thing for the same people. If you find yourself reading down a year and assembling a person out of it, that person does not exist.

Nor is any of it a prediction. These are descriptions of populations in the past, and the last few decades have moved several of them a long way. Which brings us to the caution that matters most:

Age, period, and cohort — the caution

When something looks like it changes with age, three different explanations are competing, and a table of ages cannot separate them. It may be age: the thing really does change as people get older. It may be period: something changed for everyone at once, in the year the data was collected. Or it may be cohort: the people who are seventy now were born into a different world from the people who are thirty now, and have been different their whole lives.

A figure like the median age at first marriage carries all three at once. It has risen for decades — that is a cohort story more than an age one. Reading it as “what people do” rather than “what people born around then did” is the commonest way to misread this whole page. The generational layer that would show this properly — the same age across different cohorts, side by side — is not built yet; for now, the history page is where the moving frame is discussed.

The sex lens, and what it refuses to do

1 of the 122 records show a difference by sex. A record may only do so when its source states what it actually measured, and the note beside the lens reports that true count rather than a rounder one.

This matters more than it looks. Sources differ in whether they recorded sex at birth, asked people their gender, or quietly mixed the two, and a timeline that flattens that difference is making a claim its data cannot support. Where a source does not say, the record carries no divergence at all — even where one plausibly exists. That is deliberate under-claiming. The labels the lens uses are binary because the underlying data is; binary data does not describe every person’s identity or experience, and the lens is not an account of who anyone is.

The quiet parts

27 records on the timeline concern child development, puberty, fertility, health in later life, or dying. They are handled differently on purpose, and the difference is enforced by the build rather than left to good intentions:

• They render in plain language in both editions. The game vocabulary is withdrawn entirely — no unlocks, no gates, no rewards, no chrome of any kind.
• Each one carries a short note saying what the material is not, and a link to the page actually written for it. Records about dying name the page on a death and the page on grief first, before anything else.
• Records about child development carry the line a population range is not a screening threshold; if you are worried about a child, the route is a pediatrician, not a website, and the reminder that variation is not deviation.
• Nothing about a body is ever framed as a penalty, a deadline, or a failure. A window that narrows is stated as the fact it is, with routes beside it.
• There is no death marker on the spine, no per-year figure for how likely dying is, and no “average age at death” anywhere. Life expectancy appears once, with its scope stated, in the later-life material.
• Crisis material — abuse, self-harm, violence — appears nowhere on the timeline at all. It belongs on the pages written for it, which the timeline names once, quietly, and does not elaborate on.

These records are also on the list of things a qualified professional has to read before this site is public. That review has not happened yet, and the build says so rather than implying otherwise.

What we could not source

33 records are marked not yet sourced. We know the shape of the claim and we do not have a number we can quote for it, so the record shows the shape in words and no digit at all. Each one is listed in the build’s known-limitations record together with the exact query that would resolve it. 89 records carry a source.

Showing the gaps is the point. A timeline that quietly filled them with plausible numbers would look better and be worth less.

The evidence labels in use

Calibrated

Reserved. A value tuned against data. Nothing on this timeline claims it.

Evidence-informed

A descriptive claim resting on at least one source we fetched and quoted.

Contested

Sources disagree. Both are shown.

Insufficient evidence

We looked and did not find something adequate, or the thing is not quantifiable.

The eight lanes, and how they line up with the rest of the site

The timeline’s lanes are not the same set as the map’s domains or the simulation’s card families, and they are deliberately not a shared list — each was chosen for what its own surface has to do. This is the crosswalk:

Coverage across them is uneven, and the unevenness is a fact about what gets measured rather than about what matters. Rules with ages written into them are easy to quote exactly; inner life is barely measured as an age at all. The well-sourced parts of this page are not the important parts of a life.

20 records on the timeline are things people say rather than things that are true. They render as quotation, set apart, under the line an expectation is a thing said to you, not a fact about you. They are our judgement about what gets said, they are labelled as such, and they carry no ages of their own.

Known breaks in this model

This section undermines the rest of the site, on purpose. That is not modesty and it is not a disclaimer: an instrument whose failure modes are not written down is dangerous in proportion to how useful it is, because the more it helps the more readily you stop checking it.

There is a real trade-off here, and we are not going to resolve it for you. The confidence that makes an instrument worth using and the humility that makes it honest pull against each other: a page hedged into fog helps nobody, and a page that sounds certain about a life is lying. This site chooses to be direct on the page and to keep the whole list of its own failures in one place, numbered, where any page that strains can point at it. What that costs is the thing you are reading now — a section that tells you the frame you have just been handed is wrong in every specific way we have so far been able to name. We think that is the cheaper of the two prices.

Each entry says where the failure lives — structural (the frame itself is wrong here, and better writing will not fix it), material (the content and presentation decide how badly it bites), or edge (it bites at a boundary this site has not reached yet) — and what was done about it: open, mitigated, or accepted. Pages that lean on a break link it by number rather than improvising an apology of their own, and each entry lists the pages that lean on it.

Two rules for a map that has not grown yet

This site currently describes one country in one era, and it will not always. Two rules are adopted now, while there is nothing to defend. Continents are containers, not cultures. A region is a box that holds enormous internal variety, and an expansion that gives a continent one Default Human has stopped describing anywhere real; the same rule that keeps “default” from meaning “normal” has to survive the jump to geography, or it was never a rule. Era boundaries are local, never universal. A period break is a claim about a particular place: industrialisation, majority, retirement and adulthood itself begin and end at different moments in different societies, and a single global timeline of ages is a projection error wearing a date. Moving between regions is a life path that many people take, not an edge case — whatever gets built has to carry the person who left as well as the person who stayed. These are a paragraph today and a build check the day a second region or a second era arrives, not before.

Some pages here are supposed to expire

A few pages are about things that move: what a labour market currently rewards, which strategies are crowded, what the evidence behind a ranking currently is. Those pages carry a review date at the top, declared in the route inventory rather than remembered by whoever writes them next. The date is not an apology and it does not mean the page is unreliable now. It means the page is the kind of thing that goes out of date by design, and that a version of it still claiming to be current in several years would be malfunctioning rather than enduring. Most pages here are not like that, and the absence of a stamp is itself a claim we are making.

No scores, and why

There is no point total, level, streak, completion percentage, or comparison to other readers anywhere on this site, and there never will be. The reasons, in descending order of how much they matter:

1. A score needs a metric, and there is no defensible metric for a life. Any number here would encode a judgement about how to live and present it as a measurement — and the easiest way to make a value judgement invisible is to put a number on it.
2. Scores invite comparison, and comparison across unequal positions is cruel: a life-score would rate a life with no slack below one with it, a carer below someone with no dependents, a chronically ill person below a well one. That is inequality restated as a scoreboard.
3. Reward mechanics degrade the very things this site cares about. A streak counter on grief work would be grotesque; a completion bar on a practice converts the practice into a task.
4. Progression implies a curve, but most of most lives is the competent repetition of maintenance, which a progression system would register as a flatline — telling most people, most of the time, that they were failing.
5. Engagement mechanics serve the site, not the reader. The success condition here is that you find what you needed and leave.

What replaces scores is legibility. Games are not enjoyable because of points; they are enjoyable because they are comprehensible and you have agency inside them. This site keeps the comprehensibility and leaves the points.

What these instruments must never do

The rules below were written before the instruments they govern, and they are published so you can hold the site to them. They are not aspirations. Each one names a specific way an instrument of this kind goes wrong, and several of them describe things this site avoids by construction rather than by care — there is no account, no rating of you, and nothing to compare against anyone else. The list is the reason for the construction.

Anything that describes a difficulty or a position

• Never label a reader, publicly or otherwise, without their asking for it.
• Never diagnose a physical or mental condition.
• Never score appearance, or rank it, or comment on it as a measure of anything.
• Never treat disability as a tragedy by default.
• Never encourage fatalism: a hard position is a description, not a settled ending.
• Never invite a competition about who has suffered more.
• Never turn trauma into entertainment.
• Never let a hard position be used to excuse harm done to somebody else.
• Never treat someone’s pain as invalid because the conditions around it look favourable from outside.

Anything that describes a person’s capacities

• A described capacity is never a measure of human worth.
• A low reading is never a moral failure, and a high one is never proof of merit.
• No reading fixes what someone can become.
• Unknown stays unknown; it is never filled in to make a panel look finished.
• Nothing here diagnoses, and no profile is a diagnosis.
• Nothing is framed so that it invites a conclusion about which people ought to exist.
• Appearance and intelligence get the most careful handling of all, or none at all.
• Nothing about a reader is ever ranked against other readers, by default or on request.
• No child is boxed into a permanent identity by an early measurement.
• The environment and the support around a person stay visible beside anything said about them.
• No single attribute ever decides a recommended life.

Anything that reads a whole life back to you

• Never reduce a life to what happens to be measurable.
• Never treat prestige as the achievement that counts.
• Never score a circumstance as a moral success or a moral failure.
• Never leave out unpaid care and ordinary love.
• Never turn a tragedy into entertainment.
• Never encourage obsessive comparison.
• Never claim more about cause than the evidence carries.
• Never present a constructed biography as history.
• Never manufacture regret out of a simplistic counterfactual.
• Never assume everyone is playing for the same thing.
• Never imply that a short life cannot be a meaningful one.

What this is not

This is not therapy, diagnosis, or legal, financial, or medical advice. It describes systems and your position within them; it does not prescribe, and it is not a substitute for a professional who knows your particulars. Where a page touches something a clinician, lawyer, or specialist service should handle, it says so and points you there.

Preview status

This is a labelled preview, published so it can be read and criticised. It is not a launch. The blueprints this site is built from make certain human reviews release blockers, and not all of them have happened. Until they have, the foot of every page says preview and the pages ask search engines not to index them.

Still open, as of 2026-09-04:

• A pediatric or developmental reading of the timeline’s child-development and puberty records.
• A clinical reading of the timeline’s fertility, later-health and dying records, and of the life-expectancy note in the later-life stage.
• Clinical and specialist review of the five sensitive pages — depression, a death, grief, being hurt, and supporting someone — and of the scripted loss beats in the Playthrough.
• The owner’s editorial read of the timeline’s “what gets said” records and of the list of records still marked not yet sourced.
• The art checkpoint on the timeline’s stage rail.
• An independent acceptance review of the play layer as it shipped in 4.0.

Closed on 2026-09-04: hotline verification. Every number on the help-now page was checked against its official source, and the five source addresses that had gone stale were replaced. The entry is in the register below.

Corrections and changes

The register below is live from the first day, in the format it will keep — covering corrections, retractions and downgrades, and changes of recommendation. Its first entries are this build’s own decisions, recorded so they can be audited.

• Source change2026-09-04

  Hotline numbers verified against their official sources; the verification gate is closed.

  Every number on the help-now page was checked on 2026-09-04 against the official page for that service, and every number held. Five of the source addresses recorded on 2026-08-26 had gone stale or never stated the number — a council-finder page for 999, a retired usa.gov page for 911, a retired EU page for 112, a federation site that does not print 116 123, and a bereavement filter that no longer exists — and each was replaced by the page that does state it: the NHS on 999, the National 911 Program, the EU’s own 112 page, the Commission decision that reserves 116 123 for emotional-support lines, and the directory’s grief-and-loss listing. The fixture now says verified, with the date.

• Build decision2026-08-26

  Hotline numbers ship stamped “verify before launch.”

  Every number on the help-now page is one of the widely published official lines, but this preview has not had each one independently re-verified against its official source with a sign-off. That verification is a launch gate. The page itself says plainly that numbers change and that findahelpline.com is maintained continuously while this page is not.

• Build decision2026-08-26

  Position sensitivity is mostly inline; one interactive filter, on the credential page.

  The strongest version of this site would let you set your position once and have every cost and risk note re-resolve everywhere. This build implements that as an interactive control on the credential-decision page, and as written-in position notes elsewhere. That is a recorded simplification, not the final shape.

• Build decision2026-08-26

  History covers one era properly rather than many thinly.

  The history section builds out industrialization as a single, complete example — a patch note and a before-and-after tier board — rather than a gallery of eras named but not written. More eras are listed above under what's coming.

• Engine change2026-08-26

  The simulator's weights are authored, and published in full above.

  The Playthrough runs on internal weight and outcome tables — the Birth RNG's conditional structure, the difficulty bands, the resolution widths. Every one is authored, not measured, and none is claimed as researched. They are disclosed in readable form under “How the engine works,” so a rebalanced weight or a re-authored card is an auditable change, not a hidden one. This entry marks the category; specific rebalances will be logged here as they happen.

Retractions and downgrades

A retraction is the serious end of the register above: not a detail corrected, but something this site said that it now believes it should not have said. The format is fixed here, before there is anything in it, and it will not be negotiated with the first entry: what was said, kept and struck through rather than deleted, what replaced it (or the fact that nothing did), the page it was on, the date, and the reason. The original text stays visible, because a retraction that removes the sentence also removes the evidence that we were ever wrong in that particular way.

A retraction mechanism invented after the first error is not a mechanism. It is a decision made under pressure by people who would rather not be making it, at the exact moment they have the strongest possible reason to make it small. Publishing the format now is the only version of it that is worth anything.

Nothing has been retracted. This section renders whether or not there is anything in it, and it was written while it was empty. If it is still empty in a year, that is either a good sign or a bad one, and the register above is where you would look to tell which.

What is allowed on this site

There is one test a page has to pass to exist here: it is admitted only if it changes a decision or an orientation for you as the player of your own life. Not if the subject is important. Not if the material is interesting, or true, or missing from the internet. If a page cannot say what you would do differently, or see differently, for having read it, then whatever else it is, it is not this.

The test is here rather than in a style guide because it is the one sentence that stops “explaining life” from becoming an encyclopedia, and because publishing it lets you hold us to our own scope. Every route in the inventory records the answer in one line, and the build refuses a page that leaves it blank. If you find a page here that does not change anything for you, that is a reportable fault and not your failure to appreciate it.

What’s coming

This is the only place on the site where unbuilt scope is named — everywhere else, a page either exists at useful depth or is not shown. The “planned” cards you meet on the index pages are generated from this list, so there is still exactly one place to keep true.

The order is not ours. It follows the project’s own research priority list, which starts with adolescence — the join between a childhood nobody chose and the first decisions anyone makes for themselves — and works outward from there. Each entry says why it sits where it does.

• Adolescence, first — the owner's own first research priority, because it is the join between a childhood nobody chose and the first decisions anyone makes for themselves, and because attributes, identity, risk, mental health and the first real relationships all arrive at once there. Nothing on this site currently covers it.
• Relationships and the people around you, in depth — second, because they move health, work, money, difficulty and what a life leaves behind more than anything else here does, and the guide currently names the mechanisms without modelling how a household or a friendship actually holds together.
• Money and material life, in depth — third, because it is what makes class, education, housing, family and later life concrete instead of abstract, and because it gives every other part of the guide one shared way of talking about what a move costs.
• Health as a continuous system rather than a list of conditions — fourth, because it connects capacity, ageing, load and everything they gate, and because health that appears only as separate problems misses the ordinary maintenance that most of it actually is.
• Midlife, ageing and caregiving — fifth, and the largest gap in the whole guide by span of years. It is where careers plateau, parents need care, bodies change and the run stops being open-ended, and it is the stretch the site currently jumps over.
• Time, attention and maintenance as their own subject — sixth, because it explains why plans that look workable fail under real constraints, and it is where the daily plan and the upkeep list should finally meet: the maintenance you are already tracking flowing into a realistic day, instead of the two living side by side.
• Crisis and recovery as a system rather than page by page — seventh, because the guide has to serve the reader whose life has left the common route, and because recovery deserves to be described mechanically rather than moralised about.
• The rest of a life beyond work and family — worldview and meaning, civic life and housing, place, identity, sexuality, technology and leisure. Eighth in the owner's order and parked as areas of their own: each is a version's worth of work, and none of them is a subsection of an existing guide.
• The social manual — the unwritten rules nobody is taught and everybody is assumed to know, from what an invitation actually obliges to how a favour is repaid. Parked as an area of its own, because doing it badly would produce etiquette, and etiquette is not what is missing.
• An atlas of the places a life is actually lived — the school, the workplace, the clinic, the courtroom, the queue — each with its own rules, its own currencies and its own ways of going wrong. Parked as an area beside the world map, not harvested piecemeal into the guides.
• A written story campaign, provisionally The Years Between — an authored run with a beginning and an end, rather than a generated one. Parked as its own version: an authored story is a different craft from a simulation and would need its own review.
• A living scene layer — somewhere a decision is met in a place rather than in a panel. Parked entire, and the presentation rules it would have to inherit are already written down, in the register above, before anything is drawn.
• Ethics and meaning — how to decide what is worth doing, told as something other than an optimisation. Parked as an area, because the site can lay out a decision and has no standing to supply the destination, and that boundary needs writing before the content does.
• Archetype comparison and resemblance — seeing which patterns a situation resembles, with resemblance, prevalence, confidence and viability kept firmly separate, and never used to assign anyone a destiny. Behind a research gate, because a resemblance read as a destiny is the failure mode.
• Archetype resemblance at character creation — deferred behind the same research gate as archetype comparison; a hard start is never a destiny.
• An evidence pass over the whole site — claim grades, an open-questions register, published editorial standards, a record of what each research review found, and a check that every open assertion could actually be shown to be wrong. Accepted and scheduled as the next version; none of it is partly built.
• More eras of history, done to the same standard as the first — no gallery of promises.
• Era-play in the Playthrough — replaying the same hand under a different historical ruleset, so you can feel how much of an outcome was the patch and how much was the play. Named here, not yet built.
• Deeper integration between the daily plan and the upkeep list — so the maintenance you are tracking can flow into a realistic day, rather than the two living side by side.
• Reader field reports and corrections — a way for people to send first-person accounts and flag errors, treated as primary sources. The record shape exists now; the submission path is deliberately not built yet.

Start from the walkthrough, or go back to the two books.