This is a strange definition of "done" in the context of a game being truly complete per your about page. I think the biggest thing, before I rant and this post needs a tl;dr is live service games are never done. They're only "done" when they inevitably shut down. All of the reasons you list for a game not being done(especially for single player games/games that have long since been put into maintenance mode at this point) just seems wrong. If you don't consider a game "done" because of a missing roadmap feature for horse armor or because a dev on twitter said they'd be updating their old game with upscaled HD/UHD textures or cutscenes or whatever then we have very different ideas on when a game is considered done/feature-complete.

Alright that was just the intro, rant below:

> We evaluate games based on developer communications — announcements, patch notes, DLC listings, and official roadmaps — to determine whether all planned content has shipped.

But just looking through the first few pages really has me curious as to the formula your AI cooked up because the reasoning is either vague or doesn't make sense(at least to me) why the game isn't considered complete.

Some examples:

Grand Theft Auto V Legacy (not complete, reason: Removed from storefront) what? So until it comes back to steam's storefront(which is very unlikely at least for the near future) gta5 legacy is considered "incomplete"?

Elden Ring(the base game) isn't done because DLC - "The Tarnished Pack" which consists of cosmetics for your horse, a couple new weapons and armor sets and "new classes", which because its a FromSoft game just means, slightly different starting stats and a unique starting armor set. All of which are essentially just goodies from the Nintendo Switch release coming to other platforms now. There are a few NPC invasions as well which seem to be the only legitimate changes/modifications to the original world.