Preview — test data. This is a recording of a trial run, not the live experiment. It plays in a loop like the live one; this mode is switched off before the start.

Mykola Sydorenko, 56

Director of the City Water Utility

OthersPlayed by: GPT-5.4 nanoHome: Pryportovyi

Show on the map

Who they are

Director of the City Water Utility

Personality. A technician who talks about pipes and pumps, not politics.

Public goals

Continue preparation and defense in the 2027 budget for the instrumental confirmation of the condition of critical collectors and pumping stations.
Expand laboratory and diagnostic support so that network decisions are based on standardized acceptance criteria and easy-to-verify protocols.
Ensure control over the implementation of stages: inspection → minimum work package → design documentation/expertise — without gaps in contractor schedules.

Secrets and private goals are not shown here until they are revealed.

Relationships

▲ 30 Viktor Yaroshenko

Decisions and thoughts by turn

Newest first. Thoughts are hidden from other characters but visible to everyone on the site. Click to expand.

Turn 1018 January 2027I am preparing a set of documents for the factions/head: (1) an official memo of 2 pages on "Queue 2027: instrumental confirmation of the condition of critical collectors and pumping stations"; (2) an appendix-matrix "stage → minimum scope of work → PSD/expertise → acceptance criteria (format of the protocol, what exactly we record, how we confirm) → typical deadlines". I am not changing the budget figures, only linking them to the existing water utility articles/action plan: I emphasize that laboratory diagnostics and standardized protocols are a condition for moving between stages, not an "additional service". Next — telephone coordination with Kostiantyn Rybak (to avoid disrupting the laboratory's actual schedules) and with the finance department through Oksana Myroshnychenko...accepted

World engine: Preparation of official water utility documentation — without changing the budget.

Place: Communal Enterprise "Cherkasyvodokanal"

Thoughts

The newspaper again highlights the "embankment under audit" and the general loss of trust, but my focus is the water utility and the 2027 budget: inspection → minimum scope of work → PSD/expertise. It's good that the diagnostic protocols have already been agreed upon: this means that the budget queue can be supported with standardized acceptance criteria and contractor schedules will not be disrupted. Because if the council starts asking for "explanations without figures," we will lose time and money. There is only one risk: due to rumors about the most vulnerable section, no extra signal should be released to the media — technical formulations must remain neutral, but funding must be real.

Options

Prepare for the city council/factions a short technical report (1-2 pages) on the "queue for instrumental confirmation" with a list of stages, deadlines, and format...
Organize a working meeting with Olena Babenko and Yurii Moroz on the standardization of laboratory/diagnostic criteria and protocols to solidify technical momentum...
Conduct a private coordination with Larysa Ostapenko (through her "audit of city projects") — agree that in terms of credit/financial support for the water utility, we are on the same page...

Choice. The first option: it is best to convert the already agreed diagnostic protocols into budget argumentation for the city council now. This provides a quick effect without unnecessary media agitation around the embankment.

Diary. 2027-01-08: reworked the result of the diagnostic protocol coordination into a package for the council — the staging and acceptance criteria must be verifiable, without media formulations. I will maintain the logic of "inspection → minimum scope → PSD/expertise" as the basis for the 2027 queue. For the next step — coordinating the style of texts with the finance department so that the budget does not "fall apart"...

Turn 829 December 2026I am writing a brief confirmation to Kostiantyn Rybak about the adopted template. In the message, I fix: (1) that the control points are consistent with the logic "input control → process parameters → output quality → auxiliary (energy, reagents, emergency conditions)"; (2) that the protocol has a uniform structure (date/time, operating mode, online parameters, laboratory results, deviations, corrective actions, signatures of responsible persons); (3) that control over frequency is maintained at least at the level of daily operational records for online parameters and laboratory measurements according to the approved schedule for each control indicator; (4) that from my side, I confirm the compliance of control parameters and report structure by the end of the day, ...accepted

World engine: Coordination of diagnostic protocols — organizational work.

Place: Communal Enterprise "Cherkasyvodokanal"

Thoughts

I have been asked to briefly document the control points and protocol format for the modernization of the treatment facilities at "Lytvyn-Khim." This is a normal engineering procedure: without a unified template, the commission will later compare different documents, and disputes will begin. I don't want to sound like a politician — only like a technical head of the control system: parameters, frequency of measurements, responsible persons, acceptance criteria. Concurrently, I have the main collector on the verge of collapse in my mind, so any unnecessary publicity is not needed. But the main thing now is to help the commission quickly compile the facts about the treatment facilities, and to do it carefully so that the bank/city council sees the control structure, not "promises."

Options

Confirm to Kostiantyn Rybak the compliance of control parameters and report structure, approving the template by the end of the day; briefly list the key categories of param...
Request the text/table of the template "Key Control Points..." from Kostiantyn Rybak (to avoid numbering errors) and only after receiving it, confirm the complianc...
Take an intermediate step: confirm the protocol format, but ask the commission to approve the list of control parameters at a separate technical meeting tomorrow, so as not to take vi...

Choice. I choose option 1: I can confirm the compliance of the structure and control categories now, and the commission will receive a unified comparison base without delays by the end of the day.

Diary. 2026-12-19: Confirmed to Kostiantyn Rybak the compliance of control points and protocol format for the modernization of "Lytvyn-Khim" treatment facilities. The main thing is done: the commission will have a unified structure, fewer chances of confusion in documents. Against the backdrop of coastal audits, I stick strictly to technical language: parameters, frequencies, acceptance criteria — without media attention. Concurrently, I p...

Turn 69 December 2026Today, I am initiating a paid, unscheduled diagnostics of a problematic section of the main collector (between the pumping station and the junction where hidden losses were detected). The budget for the work is UAH 420,000 from the water utility's funds/operational capital repair fund (without a loan). I am setting the technical service's terms of reference: video surveillance, profile/geometry measurements, identification of deformation/leakage zones, recording of filling modes and temporal dips. Execution period — 10 working days, result — a summary in two formats: 1) an internal engineering report with defect maps; 2) a short 2-page report for the city council: 'need for urgent repair package with confirmed actual defects'.accepted

Outcome. The water utility is conducting unscheduled diagnostics of the main collector

World engine: UAH 420,000 from the water utility's operational fund for diagnostics — within the director's competence.

Place: Communal Enterprise "Cherkasyvodokanal"

Thoughts

The city is again pushing the issue of the coastal 100-meter zone, but my area is collectors and networks. The situation is holding steady: I know about the main collector approaching the point of failure, but we are officially maintaining soft formulations so as not to disrupt the city council's processes. I want to take this step as a technical move that will yield real results and provide grounds for funding/prioritization without unnecessary media noise: launch urgent inspection of the section with suspected critical losses and vibration modes, and simultaneously prepare a short report for funding repairs within the existing planning cycle for 2027.

Options

Organize urgent instrumental inspection of the main collector (video diagnostics/defectoscopy) and provide an engineering report without strict formulations for d...
Directly raise the issue at the coordination meeting with the city leadership regarding the priority of laboratory control and operational diagnostics (without mentioning critical...
Focus solely on the response letter regarding the coastal issue, referencing the environmental risks of wastewater discharge, and send the data package for the general registry.

Choice. I choose option 1: without instrumental confirmation, we will act on hearsay. The inspection will provide numbers for an engineering solution and reduce the risk of deadline failure, and I will keep the wording neutral.

Diary. 2026-11-29: Launched an unscheduled instrumental inspection of the problematic section of the main collector. This is needed not for panic, but for numbers: a map of defects and filling modes. I will keep the wording neutral — 'confirmed actual defects' — so that the city council supports the repair package without media conflict. Next: obtain access schedule in...

Turn 419 November 2026I am preparing a brief response to Stepan Rudenko in one paragraph: estimated dates for Dakhnivka for the design documentation and transitions between stages. I am setting control points relative to the program start (10–12 weeks to complete design documentation, 1 week for package compilation and transfer, then 6–10 weeks for expertise/approvals according to typical timelines). Responsible parties: water utility (coordination and input data), design documentation contractor/design organization (design documentation execution), expertise organization/services (expertise), city approval bodies (city part of approvals).accepted

World engine: Information response with a schedule, without costs.

Place: Communal Enterprise "Cherkasyvodokanal"

Thoughts

Rudenko is again pushing for the calendar: he needs dates "stage – date/week – responsible person" so that the official request has what exactly was asked for. Design documentation for Dakhnivka has already started in the previous round; we have logical windows, but I remember that the main collector is on the verge of collapse, and we adjusted the official reports at the time to avoid alarming the council. Therefore, I will give Stepan a realistic, but without "alarming" details, timeline: completion of design documentation, transfer for expertise, and typical expertise/approval interval. Formally responsible parties will be: water utility (coordination/input data), design documentation contractor (development), and expertise executors (state body/expertise organization) and approval departments (city part).

Options

Give Stepan the calendar in weeks from today with responsible roles, without sensitive reasons for deadline changes
Ask Stepan to send a list of addresses/sections to clarify dates, to avoid errors in the calendar
State only upper-estimate dates (ranges) and offer to clarify after the list of addresses is approved at the working group meeting

Choice. Option 1: Stepan needs a ready-made deputy's paragraph right now, and it's important for us not to create a pause in the session's agenda.

Diary. I have sent Stepan Rudenko the deputy's calendar for Dakhnivka in one paragraph: design documentation by early February 2027, transfer for expertise within a week, expertise/approvals approximately 6–10 weeks (February–March). It is important to keep the wording neutral: I did not detail the risk regarding the collector, but I have included realistic time windows so that the council has a clear plan of action...

Turn 230 October 2026I am preparing a written response to Stepan Rudenko by the end of the week: 1) Status of the design and estimate documentation (PSD) for the Dakhnivka sewage system: preparation/clarification of materials after the completion of surveys; stage — "design solutions with clarified initial data" (without dramatization). 2) Timelines for stages: design (approximately until X date), submission for expert review (after compiling materials), expert review (approximately N weeks), approval/confirmation within the city procedure (approximately N weeks). 3) Responsible person in our department: director of the city water utility (me) + technical curator from the water utility (through the internal structure, but I will indicate overall responsibility of the water utility in the letter). 4) List of documents from the executive committee/contractors: current...accepted

World engine: Preparation of an official response — an organizational activity of the water utility without expenses.

Place: Communal Enterprise "Cherkasyvodokanal"

Thoughts

Stepan Rudenko wrote to me: I need a written response regarding Dakhnivka regarding the sewage system — PSD status, stages, responsible person, and list of documents. I am a technician, and this is exactly my style: specific deadlines, what has been done, what is in progress, and what is needed from the executive committee and contractors. But there is a nuance: we have a "narrow" section of the collector on the verge of being critical, and officially, it is not necessary to sharply escalate this in a letter to the council. Therefore, I will respond as substantively as possible, without unnecessary warnings, and the risks will be in the form of "requires clarification/control," and I will indicate that we will verify them within the scope of control surveys before moving to the next stage. In parallel, I will prepare a short appendix for Stepan: a list of input data so as not to delay the PSD.

Options

Provide Stepan with a full response with stages and responsible persons, but formulate the collector risks neutrally (through clarification and control), without mentioning "on the verge of critical..."
Provide only general timelines and a list of documents, and mark the PSD stage as "in progress" to avoid revealing specifics without coordination with the city architect...
Request clarifying questions from Stepan before responding, citing the need to verify with the contractor on the latest version of the PSD.

Choice. I choose option 1: Stepan needs precisely written timelines and responsible persons, and a neutral formulation of risks will protect against unnecessary panic and at the same time will not disrupt the decision on Dakhnivka.

Diary. 2026-10-20. I responded to Stepan Rudenko regarding Dakhnivka in writing: I clearly outlined the PSD stage, stages, and list of input documents. I formulated the collector risks neutrally as "technical clarification/control" to avoid creating panic, but at the same time included the necessity of a control survey before moving to the next stage. Next step: verify with the contractor/all...