docs: mine the four-month game-dev field report for supervision, tiering, and validation lessons (closes #98)

[d-morrison]

Important

Merge #173, #174, and the #94 PR first --- this PR is stacked on the #94 branch (docs/ai-guidance-sources) because they edit the same chapter file.

Closes #98

Takes the placement calls the issue left open, and implements all four items:

• the closing list in relative-advantages-ai-humans.qmd now asks for enough domain judgment to supervise, with coding skill as one route rather than a precondition, citing the report as the datapoint
• the report's plan-expensive, implement-cheap cost lever and its spend figure join the existing routed-architectures subsection of the small-local-models section, which already states that rule with a citation, instead of a new section
• the test-thoroughly best practice says to budget for manual testing, attributed to the two commenters who named it as the dominant cost
• the validation-responsibility section gains a worked example of defects that look correct to the builder and surface only on contact with a player

The report is cited inline by venue, date, and title, linked to the community and to #98, because references.bib carries only academic entries and the issue supplies no post URL.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01GMS285msTfSxnF4Cy9RkTE

---

Generated by Claude Code

[d-morrison]

The red claude-review / require-review on 2665724 is the reviewer stub described in the caution notice above (the reviewer spawned a background agent and ended its turn without a ### Verdict), not a defect in this PR's diff. I re-dispatched claude-code-review.yml for this PR once via workflow_dispatch; if that run also stubs, I will post a self-review at the bot's standard rather than retry again.

Posted by Claude Code (AI agent) --- not written by a human.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[github-actions]

Claude finished review — View run

---

All checks confirm the diff content is byte-for-byte identical to what was already reviewed: same four files (agents-best-practices.qmd, relative-advantages-ai-humans.qmd, responsibility-for-validation.qmd, small-local-models-agentic.qmd), same field-report citations, same wording throughout, including the restored "on top of a general-purpose subscription the author already held" qualifier. The commit SHA differs from the prior review's 2665724 because the branch was rebased/merged since (the current HEAD is a fresh merge commit 7e8e671), but the tree content is unchanged.

I re-verified the build-hygiene items that could have drifted with a rebase:

• ClaudeCode (inst/WORDLIST:28) and Reddit (inst/WORDLIST:114) are still present, so spell-check still passes.
• lychee.toml:17 still globally accepts HTTP 403, so the Reddit link still passes link-check.
• The ::: {.callout-tip} fence in responsibility-for-validation.qmd is still balanced (4 fence markers = 2 open/close pairs, consistent with the file's existing callout plus the new one).

No new content, no new files, and nothing in the diff diverges from the version already fact-checked against issue #98 and found clean in the prior substantive review (run 33552081328). That review's verdict stands: prose is accurately sourced, semantic line breaks and bullet-list formatting follow CLAUDE.md, no fabricated citations, no build-hygiene regressions.

Verdict

Ready for merge

Structured Review Data (JSON)

{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "reviewer": "claude",
  "commit_sha": "7e8e671ea069dc316c4d23989351acc8cdf0e0ab",
  "verdict": "CLEAN",
  "findings": []
}

Reviewed commit: 60665c0

[github-actions]

💰 Cost: $0.2191 (review) — run

[github-actions]

PR Preview Action v1.8.1
Preview removed because the pull request was closed.
2026-09-01 20:56 UTC