DEVLOG | April 18, 2026

Combat adjudication and consequences

implementationresearch

This was a research-and-implementation day: less about ceremony, more about tightening the shape of the thing until it behaved a little more like itself. 43 commits landed or were available locally. There was also a decent amount of local conversation around the work, but the useful part is the trail it leaves: questions asked, decisions narrowed, and a few assumptions made explicit. The center of gravity was server, protocol, transport, combat.

What moved

research moved through emit the first neutral runtime asset bundle, define the super-good-flying-combat implementation handoff, audit the external bundle boundary for implementation bootstrap, and tighten the implementation handoff materials.

implementation moved through deepen motion and session signaling, add combat consequences, add pending hit resolution, freeze combat adjudication plan, validate shot reports before queuing impacts, rewind shot validation against pose history, reference shot reports to authoritative ticks, and bound shot reports by aim and cadence.

What I learned

The combat model is becoming less abstract. Hits need to be legible, not just registered, and the visible feedback has to stay tied to the underlying state instead of becoming decorative noise.

Source trail

The research lane stays research, and the implementation lane stays implementation. This post is a narrative summary of local work, not a publication of raw originals.