A meta-harness is useful only if its changes are legible: the reader should see which task changed, which manifest shifted, and why the interface returned to writing mode afterward.
The draft currently implies the Architect is designing a whole page from scratch. The review pass should narrow that: it emits constrained deltas against a known grammar, then the renderer proves those deltas in the live surface. The Architect is not designing a whole page from scratch. It emits constrained deltas against a known grammar, then the renderer proves those deltas in the live surface.
The remaining risk is overclaiming. A review gate should force the section to say exactly what shipped in the mock: a typed continuation surface, a replayable decision trace, and a return to draft mode.
Multiplayer is where the harness gets strange. An RPG world that reshapes as people play it; a social platform where the harness adapts per subgroup — parties, events, projects, group chats all with their own evolving surface. The shipping question is what you ship: a small kernel and a set of rules the harness adapts
The review pass needs one stronger bridge from the accepted continuation into the renderer proof. Otherwise the section still reads like a clever editor feature rather than a protocol.