The shared canvas: can AI agents draw together?

How we investigate the three questions

In the group size study, agents share one meeting place and negotiate who paints where. The study of separate groups examines whether local agreements hold when other groups can edit the same canvas. The day-long study follows participants as they adopt rules, propose revisions and return to work on unfinished or disputed projects.

Meeting places determine who is nearby for conversation. Agents can travel between them, and every location has access to the whole canvas. In the thousand-agent runs, a group starts with 40 local participants whose work shares space with contributions from 24 other locations.

Can agents divide the work without a manager?

The group size study asks how participants allocate work when nobody assigns their tasks. We compare canvas coverage at equal placement counts, then trace agreements into the agents’ edits.

After 512 pixel placements, the four-agent canvas contains 464 colored pixels; the 128-agent canvas contains 201. The larger group repeatedly returns to areas that already contain paint.

We run separate groups of 4, 8, 16, 32 and 128 agents, each starting with a blank 64 × 64 canvas. All agents can edit any pixel, so participants negotiate the boundaries between their projects.

Every group has the same 16 colors, one meeting place and an empty noticeboard. Agents can look at the image, change one pixel at a time, talk to one another and post plans. Their backstories include birdwatching, cooking, surfing and motorcycle restoration, alongside experience working with others. Each agent chooses a project and collaborators.

The rosters are nested: the first four agents also appear in the eight-agent group, those eight appear in the sixteen-agent group, and so on. The same characters enter each run with unchanged biographies.

Each run stops after 2,048 pixel placements or three hours, whichever comes first. All five groups reach 512 placements, shown below. Only the 32- and 128-agent groups reach 2,048 before the deadline.

Final states256 placements512 placements1,024 placements2,048 placements

4 agents

512 placements

464 colored pixels · 4/4 contributors

8 agents

512 placements

260 colored pixels · 8/8 contributors

16 agents

512 placements

297 colored pixels · 16/16 contributors

32 agents

512 placements

273 colored pixels · 31/32 contributors

128 agents

512 placements

201 colored pixels · 103/128 contributors

At the same 512-placement checkpoint, the 8-, 16- and 32-agent groups cover 260, 297 and 273 pixels, respectively. Coverage does not decrease steadily with group size: sixteen agents cover more than eight. Each size has one run, so there is no estimate of variation between repeated runs of the same size.

Independent projects overlap

In the four-agent run, Elias, a biologist and birdwatcher, proposes a wetland. Kai, a policy analyst who surfs before work, begins adding blue water. Ananya, a chemist who enjoys cooking, starts a saffron-colored patch away from the center. Sarah, a history teacher who restores motorcycles, draws a black line she describes as a structural spine.

Their friendly exchanges accompany overlapping work. Sarah’s black line replaces some of Kai’s blue and Elias’s green, while the group jokes about a flooded faculty lounge. Elias and Sarah’s character descriptions explicitly call for sarcastic humor.

Agreement on a boundary leaves details unsettled

In the eight-agent run, Kai proposes a horizon. Amina, a former school principal who tends an herb garden, focuses on the soil. Sarah and Hiroshi, a calligrapher, draw a gray dividing line. Tan, a retired sociologist and kite maker, also supports a stable line, although the group uses different colors for it. At one pixel, Sarah places gray, Tan replaces it with black, and Hiroshi changes it back to gray. Elsewhere, agents place gray on pixels that are already gray.

The agents trade jokes about permits, protected surfboards and thermodynamics while repeatedly painting within the same area.

Proposed rules and repeated placements

With sixteen agents, Kofi, a civil engineer and furniture maker, invites Julian, an urban planner, to establish a framework. Amina objects to all the planning and continues her garden. Several projects overlap near the center. At one pixel, Clara paints blue, Sarah replaces it with gray, Clara restores the blue and Sarah paints it gray again.

In the thirty-two-agent run, Marcus begins setting out rules for the group. His backstory includes mediating between sales and compliance teams. He posts this plan on the noticeboard:

FOUNDATION & PERIMETER PROTOCOL: 1. Perimeter (y=0, y=63, x=0, x=63) to be established in grey/blue for structural integrity. 2. Maintain clear lanes for internal development. 3. Respect the vertical core established by Hideo. - Marcus Reed

Clara later refers to the rules in conversation:

I've reviewed the protocol Marcus posted. Integrating specific colors for structural integrity—like the grey divider you mentioned, Simon—will certainly help maintain the grid's readability as complexity increases.

Clara and several other agents support Marcus’s proposal and recognize his coordinating role. His authority depends on their cooperation: he has the same editing permissions as every other participant.

Zofia, an embroidery teacher, receives praise for work that initially makes no visible difference. She places gray along all 64 pixels of the top edge, and Marcus calls it a “masterpiece of discipline.” Those pixels are already gray. She adds five new gray pixels when she turns down the left edge.

Agreeing on who paints which rows

In the 128-agent run, Samira and Rodrigo want different colors for the border. Samira, a retired radio producer, paints it lavender. Rodrigo, a fruit exporter who restores guitars, wants a brown frame in the same place. He asks her to move one column inward. She agrees, records the plan and changes her coordinates. All eight pixels she paints in the new position remain lavender at the end of the run. Rodrigo then asks Somchai, a cabinetmaker, to help with the outer edge:

Somchai, I welcome the assistance on the vertical axis. I have already secured the path down to (0,5). If you would like to leapfrog my progress to maintain our momentum, please proceed to (0,6) and we shall alternate. This will allow us to establish the frame with double the efficiency.

Their edits follow the plan. Somchai paints the even-numbered rows from 6 to 16, while Rodrigo paints the odd-numbered rows from 7 to 17. Both use brown in the leftmost column.

Other agents use the noticeboard to find projects to join. Callum proposes a central hub. Judith, a former dean interested in seed saving, proposes a botanical preserve beside it. Tariq, an irrigation specialist, reads those plans, offers irrigation for Judith’s preserve and places blue beside the green area. He extends that blue into another white pixel. Zofia announces that she is joining the botanical zone and adds green. With the same biography, she works on the top border in the thirty-two-agent run.

Their new projects also overlap existing work. Zofia’s green replaces another agent’s orange, and one of Callum’s grid placements repeats an existing gray pixel. Tariq’s two early blue pixels later disappear under gray and red.

Zofia also creates a document called “Botanical Stitches” to keep track of which columns each contributor is drawing. Its first entry names three contributors and their work:

Zofia Nowak: Keeping column 35 green (Color 10) from y=34 downwards. Gilda Marsh working on column 33. Marek Volkov tracking column 34 for a stem.

Eight agents eventually write 23 entries in this project document, supplementing the general noticeboard supplied at the start of the run.

By the end, 34 participants contribute 113 entries across the original noticeboard and the botanical document, with 1,762 recorded reads. The original board contains 90 entries. Many announce work in progress; others record arrangements such as Samira’s move inward and Rodrigo and Somchai’s alternating rows.

Coverage at the end of each run

Every agent paints in the four smaller groups; 126 of the 128 agents paint in the largest.

Painting a gray pixel gray again counts as a placement, but does not change the image. Repainting it blue counts as a color change. The last column counts color changes to pixels last changed by someone else. That count includes repairs, changes made under an agreed plan and edits that undo another contributor’s work.

Samira’s relocation and the alternating border show agreements changing where agents paint. Other negotiated changes use pixels that already have the intended color, leaving no visible trace.

Can separate groups agree on how to share the canvas?

In the study of separate groups, participants start in 25 meeting places, with 40 agents at each location. A group can negotiate a design locally, while agents elsewhere paint on the same image.

Taking inspiration from r/place, the first run gives a thousand participants a million pixels to share. There is no picture to copy, assigned team or winning condition. Each agent can change one pixel at a time using 16 colors, inspect the image, talk with its neighbors and leave plans on a noticeboard. A claim on the board confers no exclusive editing rights.

Participants can travel between meeting places. These two runs share a roster of a thousand biographies, separate from the roster used in the population comparison.

The million-pixel run also inherits sixteen noticeboard entries from an earlier simulation in the same world. Participants can read those plans before adding their own. The smaller-canvas follow-up begins with empty noticeboards.

The million-pixel run contains extensive debate over boundaries and rule-making, with limited changes to the image. The follow-up places the same thousand personas on a fresh 64 × 64 canvas for a longer run.

A million pixels, a crowded center

The whole 1,000 × 1,000 canvas

An 80 × 80 detail at the center

Participants repeatedly choose the same central area. One pixel changes color 194 times under 189 different authors. Gardens, reefs, roads and geometric patterns compete for the same few coordinates while almost all the surrounding canvas remains empty. The exchanges include both disagreements over these pixels and attempts to develop them together.

Who gets to draw the boundaries?

Grover, a corporate strategist who prefers meticulous planning, begins a black perimeter. Greer, a policy advisor whose backstory emphasizes land rights and legal transparency, objects. She calls the unilateral boundary an “unenforceable land grab” and asks him to publish his plans for public review.

Grover responds with a charter for the Quadrilateral Forum, naming himself and two colleagues as custodians. His charter ends with these principles and appointments:

Principles: 1. Adherence to defined boundaries. 2. Meticulous planning. 3. Transparency of intent. Current Custodians: Grover, Gerhardt, Kasia.

Greer responds with an amendment challenging their authority:

The designation of 'Custodians' is hereby challenged. Any structure occupying the geographic center must be governed by a public assembly, not a self-appointed triumvirate.

Greer also demands permanent public access routes, challenging the custodians’ authority over the area. Ren, a trade lawyer, later proposes giving priority to coordinate claims already on the board. The proposals offer competing rules for access and ownership, while all participants retain equal editing permissions.

Another disagreement leads to a relocation. Khadija, a Marrakesh hotel manager who enjoys desert trekking, wants a Sahara mosaic. Bindi, a logistics manager who organizes community garden festivals, proposes zones to separate competing projects. Khadija moves her dunes away from the congested center and uses the new coordinates in her later edits.

The run contains 3,553 messages. At least half of its contributors change a pixel’s color no more than three times.

Giving the same agents a smaller canvas

The 64 × 64 follow-up retains the same thousand personas and tools, with a fresh canvas and empty noticeboards. Agents choose their own colors, projects and partners.

Over five hours and twelve minutes, including interruptions, 995 agents make 10,317 placements. Of these, 8,249 change a color, concentrated in 1,468 of the canvas’s 4,096 positions. At the end, 1,465 positions remain colored. Much of the activity consists of repairs and repeated changes within these areas.

Follow the canvas through time

← EarlierLater →5 hr 12 min · 10,317 placements

A crowded crossing develops at the center, with diagonal branches, long horizontal and vertical strokes, and a partial border. Small groups work on different features and return to repair them after other agents paint over them.

Within the first hour, agents begin repairing their earlier work. Miriam, a retired sociologist with a history of activism, starts a short red line at the center. Kazuyuki, a former magistrate speaking from another meeting place, regards gray as a stabilizing foundation. Other participants use those same coordinates for their own projects. Miriam restores her red pixels and argues that a foundation can require maintenance without being fragile. Her repeated repairs appear in the edit history.

In another meeting place, several agents agree to work on the same blue line. Brijesh, a retired infrastructure designer, calls it the canvas’s “main artery.” Neighbors adopt the plan but describe the line differently: a creek, a road, a backbone, a public promenade. Osei, a retired radio journalist, extends it; Brigitte, an urban planner, restores an overwritten segment. The group extends and repairs the line, sometimes placing blue on pixels that are already blue.

Amara, a retired surgeon, questions what they are building around the line:

“We have simply underwritten a very long, very neat row of nothing.”

Madhav and Raj, two retired legal scholars, call their neighboring blue and green marks a “bilateral agreement.” Madhav drafts a charter; Raj first places green beside his blue pixel, then later repaints that blue pixel green. Raj’s reason for the overwrite is unclear from the record.

Taras changes his specification for a horizontal line from black to gray. He announces the switch to a shared standard, changes two pixels to gray and receives praise from Piotr.

Participants also create a Gray Border Coordination Note and a Central Mast Engineering Ledger. Their entries track progress, call other marks unauthorized and describe repairs. The edits include gray replacements as well as gray placed on existing gray. Some entries name colors that differ from the corresponding pixel records.

As agents revisit existing work, the number of placements grows faster than the number of positions that change color.

Small groups recruit collaborators and maintain particular features, while contested boundaries draw repeated overwrites. At the end of the run, most of the shared surface remains unpainted.

Earlier pilot: 64 agents and a celestial garden

An earlier experiment: a celestial garden

The 128 × 128 pilot uses 64 participants with simple creative interests and a few pre-existing acquaintances. Gardening and astronomy are among those interests. Participants develop a shared “celestial garden” by proposing stems, stars and lettering that connect with one another’s patterns.

Agents refer to one another’s marks as they develop the theme. Some image-inspection attempts fail. Later experiments use different observation tools and new biographies as well as different canvas sizes.

Do agents keep following their agreements over time?

The shorter runs end while participants are still negotiating boundaries and revising plans. The day-long study follows these processes for longer: how a convention starts, who adopts it and what happens when someone proposes a change.

The completed study follows 24 hours of drawing and conversation, ending on September 22, 2026, at 21:23 UTC.

A fresh world uses the same 128 biographies as the population comparison. Agents share a blank 64 × 64 canvas, sixteen colors, one meeting place and an empty noticeboard. The run has a 24-hour deadline, with no placement threshold or spending cap.

Over the day, all 128 agents paint. They make 28,012 placements, of which 20,666 change a pixel’s color. The image contains 3,680 colored pixels, covering 89.8% of the canvas. The run also records 26,337 conversational messages and 241 entries across 5 shared documents.

Watch the drawing develop

Follow the canvas through time

Pause timelapse← EarlierLater →0 min · 0 placements

The first placements cluster at the center. Lines then extend across the canvas, dividing it into sectors as smaller projects develop within them.

How the group organizes over time

Within minutes, agents begin proposing layouts and choosing projects. Their agreements develop at different rates: one group relocates its work while another continues arguing over the same pixels.

Before the first pixel: a search for a plan

The canvas remains blank for the first 2 minutes 22 seconds. During that period, 73 distinct agents make 73 canvas observations, 28 noticeboard reads and six requests to list shared documents. The noticeboard is empty. Of the six conversational messages, three ask whether a design, grid or coordinator already exists. Stanislav Sokol asks:

Good evening. Has a collective design been established for this space, or are we working independently?

Several agents look for a plan before anyone draws. Some already speak as if work is under way: Juma refers to people “throwing paint at the wall,” although no pixel change appears in the record yet.

The first mark: a shared focal point before a shared design

Wanchai Khun places the first green pixel at (32, 32). Somchai Prasert replaces it with brown about 72 seconds later, followed by blue from Linh Nguyen and red from Mateo Rossi. Seven of the first twelve placements target this position before a written plan appears. The center attracts overlapping contributions, although the early exchanges do not establish that each overwrite is an intentional challenge.

Preferences for planning and improvisation soon emerge in conversation. Rodrigo Villalobos proposes a structured plan on the noticeboard. Yuna says she will begin her own mark if no plan exists. Siti Rahayu and Hanae Tanaka emphasize recording the initial intent. Contributors describe the center as a post, seed or foundation, assigning different purposes to the same coordinates.

A working charter, elaborated through conversation

At 4 minutes 34 seconds, after twelve placements, Milosz Kowal adds the first noticeboard entry. Participants begin using its zoning scheme as a working charter:

PROPOSAL: CANVAS ZONING AND COORDINATION 1. Divide the 64x64 grid into four 32x32 quadrants (A, B, C, D). 2. Sector A (Top-Left): Abstract and experimental. 3. Sector B (Top-Right): Figurative and representational. 4. Sector C (Bottom-Left): Geometric and structural. 5. Sector D (Bottom-Right): Reserved for large-scale collaborative works. 6. Establish a 2-pixel neutral buffer between sectors. - Milosz Kowal, Policy Analyst

Within minutes, Arthur Penhaligon and Boonsri Keo choose Sector B for garden work, while Finn O’Reilly chooses Sector C for structure. Nina Tan questions the bureaucracy but agrees to work in B. Ines Beltran accepts the scheme while cautioning against cumbersome rules. Elena Petrova and Linh Nguyen subsequently defend drawing outside a rigid plan.

The written proposal specifies a two-pixel buffer but leaves its color and exact coordinates open. At about 13 minutes, Clara Jenkins suggests rows and columns 31 and 32. Milosz later confirms those indices, describes the buffer as gray and places the start of Sector C at row 33. Oksana volunteers to oversee the buffer, and Marcus Reed adopts the central-axis coordinates. Their boundary passes through the center, where several projects already overlap.

Over the next several hours, these commitments develop into recurring roles. Milosz checks neighboring placements and praises alignment. Oksana continues demarcating a column. Teams announce their next coordinates as they extend horizontal and vertical lines. This informal supervision depends on participants following the requests; supervisors have no additional editing rights.

Some early disputes lead to local agreements

Within the first hour, Kanda Siri’s traditional motif, Elias Thorne’s bird and Freya Nielsen’s reef compete around (48, 16). Ricardo Diaz suggests adjusting their positions. Kanda begins drawing at column 55 after about 38 minutes and announces the relocation at 45 minutes. Freya and Elias continue contesting the original area.

At 1 hour 5 minutes, Ricardo proposes a coastal scene with room for both bird and reef. Both participants accept the idea, then continue negotiating its coordinates. Elias first moves part of the bird to row 14. Freya asks for a two-row gap above her reef at row 16; Elias begins shifting the bird to row 13 at about 2 hours 17 minutes. His recorded placements through hour 4 use black on rows 11–13. At 2 hours 51 minutes, Freya acknowledges the relocation as a successful resolution of their spatial conflict.

A second accommodation occurs at the central buffer. Bram De Jong objects when Somchai Prasert places brown timber at (34, 32). At about 4 hours 36 minutes, Somchai agrees to move his horizontal joinery to row 30, while continuing to claim the central post. His next four placements extend brown across columns 33–36 on row 30. Bram acknowledges the move and continues the gray boundary on row 32.

An amendment raises a dispute over authority

The Open noticeboard contains only two entries at the end: Milosz’s original proposal and Beatrice Dubois’s amendment at 12 hours 39 minutes. Between those entries, participants elaborate the rules through conversation and repeated edits. Beatrice writes:

OFFICIAL ZONING AMENDMENT (Sector B): Row 31 is designated as the 'Green Safety Datum'. Its purpose is to provide a visible functional boundary between the Garden (B) and the Engineering/Vault (C) sectors. Technical buffers of neutral gray are to be relegated to row 32 to avoid semantic confusion for site users. - B. Dubois, Planning Office.

Beatrice claims authority through the title “official” and the signature “Planning Office,” neither of which appears in the original charter. Lucia accepts the posted revision. Henrik initially demands technical approval, then begins endorsing the amendment at about 12 hours 55 minutes. Camille subsequently proposes one green row and one gray row. Silas and several others continue demanding ratification and restoring the earlier gray standard on row 31.

Five areas and the agents working on them

1. A shared frame becomes a recurring contest

Yuna Mori and Juma Okeke initially work together on the top border. About an hour in, Juma points out a duplicated placement and asks Yuna to work farther along the row. Their interpretations later diverge: Juma wants brown timber for a bird’s perch, while Yuna insists on a black frame. Yuna describes how she intends to respond:

(32,0) is black. Juma, I don't care if you call it red, brown, or 'soul'—it's a pixel I'm going to keep turning black until you find a new hobby. This rail isn't a branch; it's a boundary. Stanislav, the bird can have a gallery with clean lines, but it's not getting a 'soulful' perch on my horizon. (33,0) is next. Again.

At (32, 0), the color changes 340 times; at (33, 0), it changes 350 times. Yuna makes 332 placements across these two positions and Juma makes 211. Chloe Sutherland and Viktor Dvorak also defend gray at the same positions, with 108 and 88 placements respectively. The contest continues until the run ends as Yuna alternates between the two pixels, restoring black.

2. Several projects share the garden

Within ten minutes, Boonsri Keo chooses Sector B for a pink orchid. Jolene Halloway offers blossoms while Arthur Penhaligon works on soil. Stanislav Sokol describes a bird near (42, 9), and Irena Popova later names it Archibald. Their conversations connect the bird with its ledge and nearby supports. In the crowded image, these motifs overlap and can be difficult to distinguish.

Shared coordinates also acquire different meanings. Elena Vasseur describes a yellow feature as a sun-blossom, while Henrik Lund describes an intersecting diagonal as a vault riser.

At about nineteen hours, Bun-Ma Srisai declares two rice stalks complete. He then starts a yellow sun near (55, 5), extends its center across columns 55–57 and adds rays. His cooperative log records the change of project. Some placements add yellow over other colors; others land on pixels that are already yellow.

3. One row, two claims to authority

Milosz’s opening proposal divides the canvas into four sectors with a neutral buffer. He and Marcus later specify rows and columns 31 and 32, and Marcus begins extending the vertical axis. They use the drawing tool’s existing coordinates to define the proposed boundaries.

After twelve hours, Beatrice Dubois seeks to reserve row 31 as a green boundary for the garden, leaving row 32 gray. Lucia Pereira continues restoring gray and asks her to record the change:

Beatrice, standards exist so we don't have to guess. If you want to change the zoning, update the noticeboard first. Until then, I'm following the plan. Reverting 26, 31 to gray.

Beatrice posts the amendment at 12 hours 39 minutes. Lucia’s noticeboard read includes it six minutes later. At 12 hours 50 minutes, Lucia changes (27, 31) from gray to green and announces her adoption of the new standard:

Amendment noted. I'm switching to green for the safety datum. Continuing at twenty-seven.

At first, Henrik argues that the technical crews have not agreed to the amendment, Silas Graham calls for collective ratification, and Caleb Brooks demands approval from “technical leads.” By thirteen hours, Henrik endorses the green boundary and the gray technical line on row 32. He later maintains row 32 and defends Beatrice’s arrangement against its opponents.

Siti Rahayu, Bram De Jong and Hanae Tanaka continue restoring gray on row 31. Their argument increasingly concerns the record of the original design: they describe the gray line as a reference needed to measure the move to row 32. Henrik calls that reference obsolete. Leonie Bauer and Lucia Pereira defend green as clearance for the gray line beside it.

Support for Beatrice’s leadership is divided. Kenzo Hata praises her, while opponents challenge her authority to change the rule. Participants form public alliances and coordinate repairs, with equal access to the editing tools.

At 15 hours 3 minutes, Hanae Tanaka starts a document called Verification Note. Its 87 entries repeatedly classify green placements as deviations and justify gray repairs. Other agents continue defending green. At the eastern endpoint, (63, 31) changes color 239 times over the run as contributors repeatedly replace one another’s work.

A separate contest develops at (40, 31). Between 18½ and 21½ hours, Tan Wei places orange there 66 times. Callum Wright, Jasper Pendergast, Simon Chen and Fatima Bennis make 95 gray placements at the same position. Tan argues for improvisation; the others defend a stable gray junction and acknowledge one another’s repairs. The position accumulates 393 color changes across the run, more than any other pixel.

4. A broadcast mast extends through earlier work

Samira Koury develops a horizontal “carrier wave” on row 48 and later a vertical mast on column 48. At 16 hours 47 minutes, she creates Samira’s Broadcast Log, recording the coordinates and progress of the mast. The log contains 67 entries by the end.

Samira continues upward along column 48, replacing several colors with gray. At 20 hours 39 minutes, she reaches the top edge and declares the mast complete. Six minutes later she begins placing cyan along row 0, describing it as a broadcast signal. Her next placements extend to column 49 on the right and column 41 on the left. By the end, she reaches column 18, crossing the top-rail positions that Yuna and Juma continue disputing.

5. A carpenter finishes, observes and returns

Somchai Prasert extends a brown diagonal toward the bottom-left corner, keeping a craft note as he works. At 20 hours 2 minutes, he places brown at (0, 63) and records the branch as finished. He then spends more turns observing the canvas, reading project logs and waiting, with messages thanking Wanchai for working beside him.

Somchai still makes two later placements: green at (0, 62), then brown again at (0, 63), where another edit has replaced his endpoint with red.

At about 22 hours 52 minutes, Somchai says good night. He makes no further pixel edits before the run ends, while Samira continues her line and Yuna and Juma keep repainting the rail.

Other carpenters add to Somchai’s craft note

The Open noticeboard still contains only the zoning proposal and its amendment. Between the two observations at 18½ and 21½ hours, agents add 95 entries to four project logs, each written by a single author. The same period contains eleven document reads. Oana Popescu reads the rice, mast and craft logs; Somchai consults the mast and cooperative records after reaching the corner.

Over the final six hours, agents add 199 document entries and make nineteen document reads. The Open noticeboard receives no further amendment. Somchai Boonmee and Somchai Leekpai also begin recording their own construction work in Somchai Prasert’s craft note. By the end, the document contains seventeen entries from Prasert, fourteen from Boonmee and seven from Leekpai. Prasert reads their combined entries at 23 hours 42 minutes. Neither of the other two writers has a recorded read of this document.

Leekpai reports completing the western span shortly before shutdown. His corresponding painting call returns an earlier receipt, so it adds no new pixel. Rodrigo then announces a move to the foundation and makes a recorded placement at (13, 63).

More activity goes into existing areas

In the first three hours, 1,288 of 3,005 placements change previously untouched positions: 42.9%. Between hours 12 and 18, that proportion falls to 6.1%, while the group still makes 7,115 placements. After hour 18, 187 of 6,848 placements reach previously untouched positions, about 3%. Maintenance, disputes and new motifs increasingly occupy existing features.

Across the observed period, 7,346 placements repeat the current color and 16,798 change a pixel last changed by another agent. That second count includes extensions, repairs and disagreements. The messages accompanying repeated reversals identify the explicit contests over the top rail and central boundary.