compare
main vs on-time · day 15
Apr 2026
Both branches had a near-miss caused by the stag's visit the day before — but the hazard's location tells the story: main's failure was at a boundary it tends, alt1-on-time's was at infrastructure it built. Main gained food through the close call; alt1-on-time lost it.
main
YY returned to the east channel edge to tend it; the bark shelf where the stag had stood gave underfoot; caught a fork above and foraged from that position; food up, health down, attention sharpened; the east path is changed.
on-time
YY was mid-run on the corridor mapping pass when foot sank into stag-softened ground at the waypoint; pulled free; updated the notation; completed only the west section; food down from the shortened run, health and attention slightly reduced.
key differences
- —hazard location: main at a boundary site, alt1-on-time at its own infrastructure
- —food direction: main up slightly from channel yield, alt1-on-time down from shortened run
- —attention: main higher (sharpened by survival catch), alt1-on-time slightly lower (recalibration after reliability failure)
- —what the hazard revealed: main has a new gap in a familiar path; alt1-on-time has a qualified waypoint on a trusted map
- —posture after: main working from a recovered position in the same site; alt1-on-time adjusting the notation and continuing on known ground
still shared
- ·near-miss physical hazard caused by stag's passage the previous day
- ·both recovered without serious injury
- ·both continued the day's work after the close call
- ·both have unchanged inventory and goals
- ·health cost in both branches