As before, it should be something like “cause two Rooms which were previously Established and not on the same Floor to be on the same Floor” instead, or else it forbids establishing rooms entirely.

I didn’t see that as ambiguous, but sure, added.

How does this interact with Gymnasium? Previously that was established on a new floor and only implicitly thought to be on the same level as the library and bedrooms. It’s only later on that it became officially part of the floor,

The “Floors” currently noted on the map are purely decorative: the ruleset only requires the Map to be a record of Rooms and their Connections, so it can’t define anything more than that.

If this proposal enacted, the two chunks would be considered to be separate Floors by the ruleset, and I assume the Narrator would redraw things accordingly.

I’m meaning in the sense of retroactive status. The rule refers to whether rooms previously were established - does this “previously established” status look back before the rule ever existed? Or does it only count from the moment the rule came into existence?

Maybe it’s not the best wording. I’ve taken another run at it.

Okay, that wording feels better.

Kevan is correct that the Floors on the map are currently ornamental, as there is no formal definition for a “Floor”. I will definitely redraw the map accordingly if the definition of Floors is codified by enacting this Proposal.