# Episodes before the model Target length: 300 to 500 words per episode. ## Ordinary: `E-01`, making the opening job actionable The first call proposes an Armenian flag, rather than an already settled drawing with assigned workers. A later participant asks for help in `62qqvs`. Those requests open an undertaking to which other speakers can contribute. No statement establishes that all subreddit readers join it. > Help me out guys! `c0002`, BNw45dETeoRO6jEpMI9jf9GYr58=, hour 13, item `62qqvs`, thread `62qqvs`. Work and planning appear together. ja8rfDa6gcBvltmZPNZqFqQyKVg= reports a wrong-colour pixel placed on a phone, then joins the discussion about establishing a base flag and extending it. BNw45dETeoRO6jEpMI9jf9GYr58= proposes dimensions, a border and a flagpole. The tentative wording matters: different speakers are still proposing the size and sequence of work. The six-pixel-per-bar proposal in `62t1vh` also locates the flag beside Greece. These are practical references, not proof of a settled final design. A missing address receives an answer. /Vz/VXHXy7Fz1N9dWqphKyxDI/g= asks for coordinates in item `dfozwwg`; flUcgcZ/QJJr29uZapvrRMemcGY= answers in `dfp0039`. Both belong to `62t1vh`. The coded answer is small enough to show why one need not write a long plan to contribute to coordination. > (526, 34) `c0012`, flUcgcZ/QJJr29uZapvrRMemcGY=, hour 23.23361111111111, item `dfp0039`, thread `62t1vh`. The record then includes a report of attempted help in the opening thread. It is also a complaint about how the effort is proceeding. > I'm attempting to help but its so disorganized lol `c0007`, oM/B5nYGUq6j4zVPFB7CD15J8qo=, hour 25.511111111111113, item `dfp5rhi`, thread `62qqvs`. That combination challenges an account in which only coherent central instructions make work possible. It also challenges a success story in which any contribution means the coordination problem has been solved. A person can attempt the shared job while finding it disorganized. flUcgcZ/QJJr29uZapvrRMemcGY= reports an alliance with Greece, and a later call asks people to defend the Greek flag. The opening undertaking therefore begins to involve another drawing and another source of obligation. BNw45dETeoRO6jEpMI9jf9GYr58='s instruction to complete expansion and the black border before the next project supplies the analytical endpoint at hour 27.420833333333334. The episode starts at hour 10.200555555555555, the original flag call; it does not start anew at each thread. The minimum supported account is a proposed job gaining dimensions, an address, practical answers and self-reported work. The coder themes distinguish planning, continuing pixel work and help between neighbours. This public sequence leaves task allocation, compliance and the relation to unrecorded placements unknown. It cannot tell us how much of the whole drawing these speakers produced. ## Unpredicted: `E-07`, trying to spare Squidward without showing a rescue This episode challenges an inference from the presence of concern and repair language to preservation. At hour 58.91972222222222, 2psXPUPcqVd6hXhUVs4WlgFYNvk= asks participants to stop harming Squidward and compares their action with what Dutch participants did to the Armenian flag. The comparison gives a reason for restraint in the speaker's own words. > Don't kill Squidward. Remember what the Dutch did to us, that is what we are doing to Squidward. `c0140`, 2psXPUPcqVd6hXhUVs4WlgFYNvk=, hour 58.91972222222222, item `dfr6ri9`, thread `632tpb`. A rescue call follows in the megathread. It states what someone wants others to do, not what happened to the drawing. > Commence operation save squidward! `c0141`, Tg3o75Cwh1lN1o73ZTc6dt+Bijc=, hour 58.9675, item `dfr6wm4`, thread `632tpb`. Vu1HLJ6tyMilOL+RgByB3JkfOWU= also posts a separate request to stop the attack in `6347wb`. In the megathread flUcgcZ/QJJr29uZapvrRMemcGY= apologizes, condemns the destruction and attributes it to trolls or misinformed people. The apology claims an answer on behalf of r/Armenia. It does not identify the pixel placers, demonstrate their membership or compel them to change. The next coded report from Vu1HLJ6tyMilOL+RgByB3JkfOWU= says the drawing is basically gone. That report is the strongest contrary evidence to a successful-rescue reading. > It's basically gone now mate. RIP Squidward. But hey Armenia and India have been getting along quite well. We are thinking of building hearts between our flags. `c0143`, Vu1HLJ6tyMilOL+RgByB3JkfOWU=, hour 60.11388888888889, item `dfra6ug`, thread `632tpb`. The same passage proposes hearts between India and Armenia. A speaker can report the loss of one drawing and still propose joint work elsewhere. No inference that everybody becomes cooperative follows from that change of object. Different people also speak at different points. ja8rfDa6gcBvltmZPNZqFqQyKVg='s response in the standalone thread, at hour 61.31194444444444, expresses a wish to keep Squidward and blames rogues. The episode ends at that observed response, with restoration unresolved. It has neither an evidenced repaired drawing nor an explicit decision to abandon a rescue. The ordinary opening episode shows actionable references and reports of contribution. This episode also contains a practical request, a proposed operation and an answer from another participant, yet those acts do not establish a saved neighbour. The coder theme of repairing harm must therefore include attempted and failed repair, as its evidence permits. Calling this kind unpredicted means that a static catalogue of concern, collective voice and repair cannot determine this outcome. The loss was already visible during R2 and is not a newly discovered event. The account concerns reported damage in text. It neither verifies the artwork visually nor establishes that the apology was false. What fails is the equation of a collective statement with effective control over the people placing pixels. ## Stopped early: `E-03`, withdrawing the larger-flag plan At hour 32.657222222222224, ja8rfDa6gcBvltmZPNZqFqQyKVg= proposes a second, larger Armenian flag. The full surviving title identifies the red-and-orange checkerboard above the current flag as the proposed target. The coded part carries the proposal itself. > New plan: Let's create a second larger Armenian flag `c0046`, ja8rfDa6gcBvltmZPNZqFqQyKVg=, hour 32.657222222222224, item `62wq1d`, thread `62wq1d`. The thread does not show a new project simply proceeding from that announcement. flUcgcZ/QJJr29uZapvrRMemcGY= warns that Russia or the Netherlands may still take the existing location and suggests negotiating a safer site if defence fails. z8dgF0tbU5hf9m8xs1SRh4U7yxY= offers a different immediate diagnosis: the invasion seems to have slowed, so they should repair the east and then continue west. Those contextual turns compare possible responses to the same continuing trouble. The author then acknowledges the advice and withdraws the proposal. The coded part is explicit. > Disregard my post guys `c0047`, ja8rfDa6gcBvltmZPNZqFqQyKVg=, hour 32.92888888888889, item `dfpnjih`, thread `62wq1d`. flUcgcZ/QJJr29uZapvrRMemcGY= later agrees. The full thread at receipt 2868 supplies the acknowledgement and advice; the closed codes are unchanged. I do not substitute the uncoded context for an invented new code or quote it as if it were the coded proposal. Withdrawal distinguishes this case from a plan that receives no coded response. The supplied record shows a practical reversal, not merely silence at the end of a thread. Nor does it show that a larger drawing was built and subsequently destroyed. A title announcing a plan and a later success account elsewhere cannot fill that gap. The observed end is hour 32.92888888888889, the withdrawal, rather than the later agreement. That follows the prior rule: an undertaking ends when its proposer explicitly withdraws it. Defence of the existing flag continues in the overlapping episode, so stopping this plan is not an end to the flag effort. The local coder theme of planning includes this revision. That is analytically useful because proposing a target is reversible. New instructions can stop a proposal without ending work on the earlier drawing. The evidence also limits any account in which threat necessarily causes relocation: advice based on the apparent slowing of the attack supports returning to the current job instead. What remains unknown is whether any participant had already placed pixels toward the abandoned proposal. The record does not measure that response, and the uncertainty does not erase the explicit public withdrawal. The later replacement projects must be followed on their own evidence rather than treated as the completion of this withdrawn plan.