The prose test on the names, pass 1 (C5a-01)

Target length: about 1,400 words. For each construct, one sentence in which the name does theoretical work, of the form "because the room had X, Y could happen". A reader would say this sentence about a room using the name and nothing else. Below each sentence is a verdict, and where it applies, what the sentence assumes that the run has not tested. A name that only labels the subject of its sentence fails, and stage C5 section 2 then recuts it under rule 11.

Result of pass 1. No name fails: each of the 36 does work in its sentence. Four names imply a mechanism that the run has not tested, and they are flagged: Critical mass, Live and let live, Reciprocity and Collective efficacy. Four names need their difference from a construct they may be mistaken for stated in the account: Stigmergy, Decided order, Completion ritual and Live and let live. The account of pass 1 states none of the four differences; the account of pass 2 (C5a-02) states all four.

Fourth-order themes

1. Keying (T4-001). Because the sub was keyed as play for April Fools, members could ask of any post, a call to the canvas included, whether it was meant. Passes. In 88 rooms members tested whether a claim was meant.
2. Boundary work (T4-002). Because the host sub drew a boundary around canvas talk, members could be told to take their canvas work to a megathread or a canvas sub. Passes. No count shows what the line did to the work.
3. Sensemaking (T4-003). Because members made sense of the new canvas in the thread, a newcomer could learn there how to place a first pixel. Passes. Whether an explanation led anyone to place is not counted.
4. Frame bridging (T4-004). Because members bridged the room's own frame to the canvas, a clash on the canvas could be told as the fandom's lore. Passes.
5. Mobilization (T4-005). Because the room mobilized its members by calls, a picture that needed many pixels could get many hands when no one could order anyone to place. Passes. A01 counts the order from call to build.
6. Collective representation (T4-006). Because the mark stood for the room, members could claim a mark that others had placed as the room's own. Passes. 43 rooms found their mark placed.
7. Stigmergy (T4-007). Because the half-built mark was a trace on a medium every member could see, a member could see what was missing and place there without being told. Passes. The record holds the talk that reports the trace, not the placing (C5a-01, 31 of 52 records). The account must state its difference from imitation and from a transparent task architecture.
8. Standardization of output (T4-008). Because the room standardized its output in a template, members could settle an argument over a pixel by pointing to the template. Passes. A template does not make placers follow it.
9. Workarounds (T4-009). Because members worked around the rate limit, a room could place more pixels than its members could place by hand. Passes.
10. Backstage decision-making (T4-010). Because the room decided backstage in a chat, members who never joined the chat could learn the plan only when someone announced it in the thread. Passes.
11. Decided order (T4-011). Because a room had decided an element of its order, a vote could settle a dispute that talk had not settled. Passes. The account must state its difference from a shared basis of authority.
12. Collective efficacy (T4-012). Because members judged the room's collective efficacy too low to hold its spot, the room could stop fighting and move. Passes, flagged. The name implies a belief shared by the room; the record holds single members' judgments, and A10 is thin.
13. Repair work (T4-013). Because members did repair work, a mark that anyone could change could still stand when placement stopped. Passes.
14. Territoriality (T4-014). Because members claimed the spot as territory, a neighbour's growth into it could be disputed as encroachment. Passes.
15. Live and let live (T4-015). Because neighbours practised live and let live, a room could spare a neighbour's work with no agreement and expect the same in return. Passes, flagged. The return the name implies is not counted. The account must state its difference from an explicit truce.
16. Negotiated order (T4-016). Because order between rooms was negotiated, a border could be renegotiated after one room's placers broke it. Passes.
17. Reciprocity (T4-017). Because help between rooms was reciprocal, a room short of hands could ask for help from a room it had helped. Passes, flagged. No count tests whether rooms that helped were helped in return.
18. Meta-organization (T4-018). Because rooms formed a body of rooms, the hands of other member rooms could defend one member room's work. Passes.
19. Attribution (T4-019). Because members attributed a change to a friend's mistake, they could undo it without blaming a neighbour. Passes. Attribution as the step between restraint and attack was tested and not found.
20. Repertoire of contention (T4-020). Because the canvas offered a repertoire of contention, a room that chose to contest a rival's work had a known set of moves: erasing, encroaching, converting. Passes.
21. Rivalry (T4-021). Because two rooms were rivals, their contest could go on in taunts after the pixels were settled. Passes.
22. Flagging the nation (T4-022). Because members flagged the nation beyond the mark, a fight on the canvas could be told as national history. Passes.
23. Neo-tribes (T4-023). Because members formed a tribe around a colour, a faction could split over what the colour stands for. Passes.
24. Symbolic boundaries (T4-024). Because members held a symbolic boundary, a swastika on the canvas could be covered by members whose work it did not touch. Passes.
25. Visibility returns (T4-025). Because the room's mark was visible to the whole site, newcomers could find the room through it. Passes. The theme was never tested as an element.
26. Completion ritual (T4-026). Because the room held a completion ritual, members' scattered placements could be credited and celebrated as one work. Passes. The account must state its difference from reward provision.
27. Collective memory (T4-027). Because members built a collective memory of the work, the work could be recalled and argued over after the canvas was gone. Passes.
28. Transition (T4-028). Because the room made a transition at the close, the canvas sub could be given a new purpose. Passes.

Dimensions

1. Critical mass (D01). Because a room gathered a critical mass of hands, it could build a mark large enough to hold before the canvas filled. Passes, flagged. The name implies a threshold. The run has not tested one, and the related claim that replies show a room its numbers failed (F-015, weak).
2. Coordination without command (D02). Because the room coordinated without command, a template or the trace could align a picture while no one could give an order. Passes.
3. Maintenance (D03). Because members maintained the work, it could stand on a surface anyone could change. Passes. At C5a-01 its declaration said attribution "decides between quiet repair, forgiveness and retaliation", which the run's test contradicts. At C5a-02 the dimension declarations were read under the prose rule, and that sentence is gone.
4. Order without law (D04). Because order between rooms ran without law, an agreement could hold only as long as the rooms' members kept it. Passes.
5. Collective identity (D05). Because the room carried a collective identity, a tie from before the canvas could name the rival in an attack turn. Passes. C02 is untested for order.
6. Host framing (D06). Because the host sub framed the event in its own space, canvas talk could be keyed as play or confined to one thread. Passes.
7. Imprinting (D07). Because the episode imprinted the room, the canvas mark could become the sub's banner. Passes.
8. Contention (D08). Because rooms contended, an attack could be answered with a truce or carried on in taunts. Passes.