【Strategy Deduction Simulation Supplement + Criticism】
【Important Notes】
At the human level, the author dislikes Eva, but at the character level, the author appreciates the characterization of Eva.
The author is not a native English speaker.
The author is not a professional.
The author does not guarantee the accuracy of every plot detail.
Due to the author's writing style, discussions may appear cold regardless of the topic, and as this is a critique, the tone may be stricter.
This article serves as a supplement to the previous article: 【Strategy Deduction Simulation Collection】—Eva Chapter. Content already covered in the previous article will not be reiterated here.
Personal opinion archive. If the reader disagrees, the reader is free to write their own piece.
If this isn't your cup of tea, feel free to leave the page.
————
【Important Note】
The following discussion is based purely on an “in-story” perspective.
The following discussion is grounded in full respect for the original author's ability to depict reality.
This analysis examines the content and logic of the original work itself, rather than strictly following or adhering to the established plot, information, or outcomes currently presented.
As this text involves discussion and analysis of a murder plan, it will inevitably touch upon content that conflicts with everyday moral/ethical intuitions.
Within the strategic thought experiment, the sole constraint on means (such as murder plans) is “whether they serve the end” (escaping by winning the class trial). Therefore, factors beyond this—including everyday morality, ethics, personal comfort levels, etc.—will not be considered.
Content may cause discomfort. Readers are advised to proceed with caution.
————
【Cognitive Test】
1. When this text presents content that contradicts everyday moral intuition, it indicates that the author:
A. Has flawed values and ethics.
B. Is strictly examining the original content and logic, conducting derivative thought experiments, and pointing out the potential dangers of certain thought patterns to individuals.
C. Intentionally promotes and encourages controversial/extreme methods.
Answer: B
This test evaluates logical consistency only and is not an IQ/EQ assessment.
Choosing B indicates you understand the foundational logical premise of this text.
Selecting any answer other than B suggests your perspective conflicts with the foundational logical premise upon which this text relies.
————
Through Eva's series of actions, I feel she actually has little grasp of what true evil or reality entails—her imagination is severely lacking.
I know that if one only considers the plot itself, Eva's plan might seem brilliant, with precise judgment and meticulous control.
But when truly considering all the possible “if” scenarios in the realistic sense, is that really the case?
As mentioned earlier, even setting aside the murder plan itself, Eva's decision to kill first meant staking her own basic life safety entirely on the premise that “the Mastermind would definitely honor his promise.”
And this premise was completely baseless.
As stated previously, the Mastermind himself had zero credibility; his promises were essentially psychological weapons.
Much like enemy broadcasters casting a wide net, spreading propaganda like “If you defect from the dark side to the bright, you'll enjoy boundless wealth and glory.”
Once Eva completes the act of “killing,” from the Mastermind's perspective, she becomes nothing more than a self-destructing disposable pawn—used to squeeze out her last shred of utility (to fuel another round of psychological/cognitive attacks against the group)—awaiting disposal.
Like heading south while steering north—when the initial assessment of the situation or direction is fundamentally off, no matter how fast the car speeds, it only accelerates further away from its destination. No matter how swiftly or steadily the car hurtles toward the cliff, it cannot alter the essential outcome: the car is hurtling toward the cliff.
The fundamental premise of strategy is that “means serve ends.”
Therefore, if Eva's objective is personal survival rate, then all her actions related to “killing others and participating in the killing game” cannot be called a strategy. They are pure self-destruction, and there is no need to discuss them at the strategic level.
————
However, let us provisionally assume that the Mastermind is absolutely trustworthy and will strictly honor the promise to release the killer upon winning the class trial. We shall discuss under this hypothetical premise.
Eva's murder plan exemplifies classic linear, one-directional thinking.
Every subsequent decision/prediction/action is built upon the premise that the previous decision/prediction/action must have succeeded completely. It's like solving a math problem where the previous condition has been proven, then immediately using it as a fixed premise for the next step without revisiting it. There is absolutely no consideration for variables, alternative paths, or the stability of the premises themselves.
(Note: For the sake of this discussion, we'll provisionally accept the current plot's conclusion that Eva's plan actually worked in its entirety and was the sole factor influencing the case.)
【Example】
If either Wolfgang or Diana chooses to reveal or ignore the letter or set a counter-trap, more than just Wolfgang arrives, Eva fails to knock Wolfgang out in one strike, the drug's effects unexpectedly wear off, or some other reason causes Wolfgang to wake up prematurely, someone else suddenly enters the boiler room. Diana didn't fully follow Eva's instructions to close the door, Diana successfully drags Wolfgang out of the water, miscalculates the timing of the throw, and the electric shock fails to be fatal ......
These are only rough outlines of potential flaws within the plan itself, temporarily setting aside all external variables.
Any flaw could destroy the plan, and failure would almost certainly mean Eva's direct death or a drastic increase in the danger she faces—an absolutely intolerable risk.
Designing an exceedingly intricate and complex plan where every uncontrollable step could trigger a cascading disaster—yet ultimately, once the logical chain is established, the process of elimination (considering only within the group) inevitably points to Eva alone—this, to put it bluntly, offers only high entertainment value and dramatic value.
【Note】
I know that, after Eva saw Cassidy decide to hold a game competition, she immediately chose to use it as a potential alibi might seem like she's highly adaptable and quick-witted, but that's precisely the problem.
——Why in successfully achieving the goal of 【winning the class trial by murder】, would the crucial method—【concealing one's identity as the killer (to establish an alibi)—which ensures the group votes for the wrong target】, be a last-minute decision and something Eva herself has little control over?
What if Cassidy and the others change their minds at the last minute? What if they refuse to let Eva help set up the venue? What if they force Eva to join the competition and won't let her be alone? What if the competition venue suddenly shifts or extends near the ventilation shaft?
Let me reiterate: failure of the plan could very well mean Eva's direct death.
————
What most starkly reveals Eva's lack of basic safety awareness is that her plan involves placing herself in a situation highly likely to escalate into hand-to-hand fighting—why voluntarily increase the odds of a one-on-one confrontation with a target possessing a clear physical advantage?
Even if one absolutely must execute a plan like “participating in a killing game,” then for safety's sake, one should at the very least assume absolute malice toward their chosen target.
—The opponent would not be a “harmless puzzle” that stands still, thinks nothing, offers no resistance, and can be knocked down at will, nor an NPC dragged around by a personal stage play script.
Instead, they would be a living, breathing threat with free will—one who would turn on the assailant and deal with them using the most extreme, vicious methods.
And the location chosen was one of the most remote spots—the boiler room at the end of the underground corridor.
Let us now assume the most malicious and hostile intent on Wolfgang's part.
If he truly is a boundless, cunning, and cruel predator—malicious and premeditated—then in the worst-case scenario, deep within a dim boiler room far from any crowd, once Eva falls, she would be utterly at her opponent's mercy. No one would hear her cries for help. Under such circumstances, the series of real-world consequences need hardly be elaborated upon.
Now, even if we first assume the target Wolfgang would never proactively engage in any form of harmful behavior and would definitely be completely unguarded, let's revisit the discussion under these hypothetical premises.
Can Eva guarantee she could restrain an adult male—who would be in a state of shock from a sudden attack—within a confined, dimly lit, small space far from the crowd?
And if Eva chose to ambush him from behind (by blocking the doorway), Wolfgang couldn't choose to fight—he'd have no choice but to fight.
Let's start with a quick assessment of the enemy-friend situation:
Me (Eva): 18-year-old female, approximately 5'8" , around 141lbs. Talent is mathlete.
Enemy (Wolfgang): 22-year-old male, approximately 6'2", around 156lbs. Talent is lawyer.
This is the currently known information (both known to the audience and the characters).
Even though neither possesses combat-oriented talents, Eva holds clear disadvantages in pure physical attributes—gender, height, weight, and physiological response.
Even without looking at the data, he's standing right in front of her. The physical disparity is something even a child could sense through animal instinct.
Take Damon, for instance. When he saw Jean (approximately 6'0", around 230lbs.), he could pick up on the latent threat—before specific personal details were shared with the students. Physical stature is something one can immediately perceive visually.
Even if he had previously underestimated Jean, during the prologue's suspicious blood corpse scenario, his instincts initially led him to disagree with Jean's actions. Yet, sensing the latent pressure, he withdrew. (The same applies to Cassidy later)
But Eva seemed unable to translate this received information into even the slightest step of deduction—such as calculating how dangerous it might be to design a solo confrontation with him in a confined environment.
Realistically speaking, as a girl of average build with no athletic background, believing she could subdue a significantly taller adult male with a single strike was already a suicidally reckless decision.
If we were to evaluate this strictly by real-world standards, the numerical disparity would be far more than just an abstract gap.
When the difference in combat skill between opponents is not significant:
The height and weight disparity means that if they become locked in close combat, Eva is highly likely to be immediately physically overpowered and unable to retaliate.
Furthermore, the combined effect of this with confined spaces means Eva's physical maneuvering space is compressed—when both are unarmed or wielding weapons (if any) of similar length, Wolfgang will likely strike Eva more easily due to superior mobility, while Eva will find it harder to hit Wolfgang. (due to his longer reach and limbs)
Gender differences speak for themselves. Combined with the effects of stress response and the dim, isolated environment, this further drastically decreases Eva's counterattack opportunities while significantly increasing the opponent's lethality—when a person enters a combat-induced stress response, the instinctive drive to eliminate the source of harm becomes the highest priority. At that moment, what kind of person they were in everyday life becomes irrelevant.
——Simply put, Eva proactively chose a location that would maximize the opponent's potential advantages while amplifying her own potential weaknesses.
——If we're really going to execute this plan, shouldn't we at least start by placing a bucket on the door filled with something to weaken the opponent a bit first?
————
And this doesn't even account for potential hidden information.
We come back to that point: Eva doesn't know the actual specific skill levels of group members, doesn't know the network of relationships between members, and doesn't have time to fix plan flaws, and so on.
For instance, revealing hostility toward Wolfgang by conversing with Damon beforehand is entirely unnecessary, and exploiting Diana carries higher risks. This proactively diminishes the plan's success rate before execution even begins, then hands control entirely to others—if Damon chooses to publicly disseminate this information, or Diana deviates from Eva's script in the slightest, Eva is finished.
Even if the target isn't Wolfgang but the group's most physically vulnerable member—the 14-year-old Toshiko—direct contact should be avoided whenever possible.
The other party is a living human. They will scream, move, resist, and flee. This is a lawless zone devoid of social infrastructure. Even setting aside concerns about success rates and evidence residue, one must consider: “What if an injury triggers a chain reaction?”
————
【Derived Thought Experiment】
Eva's plan relied not only on luck and uncontrollable factors but also on competing with a group she barely knew in terms of logical reasoning, persuasion skills, and intellect, etc., during the trial. Once the investigation phase began, Eva would be bound by the logical chains she herself had set, leaving her in a passive position entirely dependent on others' mistakes.
But what truly matters is directly stripping away the foundation for the other side's logical reasoning, rather than acting like a game boss by providing a traceable, complete chain of logic and defeat strategies.
The key to winning in class trials isn't “creating cases that are super complex/hard to crack/innovative,” but rather “making the final vote outcome incorrect.”
The simpler this approach, the better. The more steps and operations involved, the more loopholes and clues will be left behind.
If the objective truly was “to secure personal escape by winning the class trial,” and calculations were based on this premise, then the target needn't have been limited to just Wolfgang. It would have been far more effective to find an opportunity to collectively poison the food and water.
Random poisoning with variable doses (which could also involve deliberately poisoning oneself lightly to create confusion). This way, even Eva herself wouldn't know who would be the victim. No matter how great the natural professional advantage of being a lawyer, could Wolfgang possibly know?
Potential close associates/allies being harmed or causing widespread chaos are not concerns either—ultimately, either others will be executed or the killer will be executed, so the more chaos, the better. If close associates/allies die, others will find it harder to pinpoint the real killer based on emotional intuition.
Of course, there remains the risk of being caught during the operation (like being discovered stealing poison or administering it), but by simplifying the methods, this possibility can at least be minimized. Instead of being fraught with danger like Eva's original plan—and if Eva had surveillance support from the Mastermind, she could better avoid others, further ensuring the plan's success.
【The ultimate goal is to maximize dispersion in the final vote count. Because winning the class trial hinges on the “group selecting the wrong culprit.”】
That is, “create situations where the group cannot reach a consensus.”A single, clear murder case, on the other hand, is more likely to temporarily suppress disagreements within the group, fostering a consensus to collaborate in solving the case for survival.
Collective poisoning directly attacks the physiological level, undermining or partially destroying the group's physical foundation for investigation and reasoning (hardware).
It simultaneously generates widespread panic, suspicion, and infighting, destabilizing the group's psychological equilibrium and eroding their capacity for sound reasoning and judgment, as well as their willingness to cooperate or share information (software).
Furthermore, by scattering targets and creating chaotic symptoms, it makes the chain of evidence difficult to trace and the killer-victim connection hard to trace back, maximally weakening the fundamental possibility of the entire group reaching a correct conclusion (severing the logical chain).
Rather than creating a scenario where, as long as the group's reasoning is correct, logic inevitably leads to oneself.
Even if the plan isn't fully successful, no one dies:
1. The group descends into chaos.
The group will exhaust their energy and willingness to investigate due to the victims being scattered and internal strife caused by panic, making it harder to pinpoint the real culprit.
2. A capable individual stabilizes the situation.
The situation still favors the killer. As long as the killer's identity remains undiscovered, whether the group is chaotic or stable benefits the killer. Moreover, the pressure from the group or the Mastermind will shift onto the stabilizer.
————
By the way, let's do a reverse thought experiment.
If the objective is set as “group survival rate,” and someone uses the aforementioned method of collective poisoning to create chaos and obscure the killer's identity, I can currently only think of one possible solution.
Person A (or a clearly credible third party) preemptively kills the irrevocably poisoned victim before death occurs, then immediately demands a class trial to prevent the group from reaching a deadlock where voting becomes impossible.
Ideally, multiple witnesses should confirm that A (or the credible third party) is publicly identified as the murderer by collective consensus. However, the action must be sudden and swift—leave no time for others to react and interfere.
Because if the Mastermind rule is true, a voting failure would result in the entire group being executed.
This is gambling on top of gambling, I know. There are no truly controllable variables beyond A's own actions (or trusted others' actions), but if successful, two deaths would be preferable to the worst-case scenario of the entire group being executed, and could still extract some value.
For instance, testing the Mastermind's reaction (hesitation, anger, composure, etc.)—any new information can serve as a foundation for future analysis of their true intentions, personality, and weaknesses.
For instance, will the Mastermind actually hold a class trial?
If the Mastermind does not hold a class trial, they self-destruct the framework of the killing game.
If they do hold one, there will be a clear voting target/execution target (A or trusted other).
If the Mastermind, under collective witness, refuses to acknowledge A or trusted other as the murderer, they also self-destruct the framework.
Moreover, the class trial process offers an opportunity to buy time, test and deduce the true culprit's identity, and attempt to further eliminate threats to the set objective.
Incidentally, the class trial's mandatory orderly nature forcibly interrupts the spread/fermentation of aimless panic within the group, redirecting their attention back to a tangible task (participating in the trial), thereby alleviating and resetting the pressure of total collapse.
————
This time, the disturbing content keeps piling up, so I'll pause here for now.
Anyway, one thing keeps nagging at me:
Purely from the in-story perspective—if I were the Mastermind, could I really trust such a plan and such a poxy agent to handle the crucial first murder and the stabilizer decapitation? Could I truly trust her—an individual who survives almost entirely by relying on and taking advantage of good luck and favorable environments—to flawlessly kick off the entire “game” without a hitch? Would I really hand over control completely without preparing to intervene?
This is one of the key reasons I find the first chapter's case suspicious.
—Or to broaden it slightly: Why would we see/be able to see the now-familiar “procedure” and ”predetermined outcome”?
But I've written quite a lot here already, so I'll stop rambling.
——————————————
【Reject Malicious Responses—Distorting the Author's Intent, Misrepresenting Article Concepts, or Emotional Attacks】
【Refrain from Stigmatizing [Analyzing Content Involving Actions That Contravene Everyday Morality] as [The Author Having Flawed Values]】
Example: You're just a bad person! Only someone with flawed values would think that way!
【Reject rebutting the author's viewpoint with irrelevant perspectives like “Why overthink anime/games?”】
【The author retains the final right to choose not to respond】