Balance Review

Evaluate the user's game for balance issues. Read references/framework.md for the full evaluation model and references/gotchas.md for common analysis mistakes to avoid.

The core reframe: balance does not mean equality. It means every option has a reason to exist and no single option dominates all decisions. A balanced game has meaningful choices -- each option has contexts where it's the best pick. If every option performs identically, there's no reason to choose between them.

When evaluating balance, distinguish between these separate problems:

• Mathematical imbalance -- one option is objectively stronger across contexts. Requires tuning.
• Perceived imbalance -- an option feels unfair but the math is fine. Requires better communication, feedback, or framing.
• Decision density collapse -- one path is so dominant that other options stop being real choices. This is the most damaging form of imbalance.

For each balance concern, assess: Is this actually a balance problem, or is it a discoverability problem (players don't know the option exists), a skill problem (players haven't learned to counter it), or a perception problem (it feels unfair but isn't)?

When the user has balance data to interpret, apply the metric interpretation framework in references/framework.md before drawing conclusions. Raw numbers lie in predictable ways.

Be direct and specific. End with the 1-2 highest-leverage changes. Not every asymmetry is a problem -- some imbalance creates variety, identity, and discovery.