第三章

第十六章

【Important Notes】

The author likes Wolfgang.

——————————————————————————————

【Ultimate Cognitive Trial】

1.     

When 【Perspective-Switching Deduction】 presents content that contradicts everyday moral intuition, it indicates the author:

A Has flaws in their worldview and moral compass.

B Is strictly conducting simulation deduction with “serving the set goal as the sole constraint.”

C Intentionally promotes and encourages controversial/extreme methods.

2. The content in [Perspective Shift Deduction] essentially represents:

A.   An approach the author personally endorses.

B.   The author is temporarily functioning as a [pure strategic deduction simulation device], producing outcomes consistent with strategic logic.

C. The author is speculating on character psychology.

3. When an author classifies a character's action choice as a “self-destructive choice,” the author is essentially:

A.   Belittling/insulting the character.

B.   Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework.

C. Worrying needlessly.

4. When the author classifies a character's action choice as a “Gambling strategy” or “Safe Strategy,” the author is essentially:

A.   Defending/praising the character.

B.   Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework.

C. Indulging in fantasy.

　　
5. When the author does not perform deduction on every plot point, the author is essentially:

A.   Deliberately avoiding controversy.

B.   Preventing increased burden on readers and the author themselves, as well as avoiding content confusion.

C. Deliberately being unfair to characters.

This test is solely for assessing logical consistency and is not an IQ/EQ assessment.

Selecting B for all questions indicates you have understood the logical chain in this text.

Choosing any answer other than B suggests your perspective diverges from the basic logical premises upon which this article is based.

——————————————————————————————

(Note: Due to the time span of writing and translation issues, vocabulary and formatting details may occasionally differ slightly.)

【Note】

As the author has decided that the prologue's content, due to its detail-oriented and unique nature, is better suited to be presented as a separate piece, the deduction of this work will commence from Chapter One of the original story.

　　
　　————————————————————————————

【Key Reminder】

Premise Description:

—Any strategic simulation must originate from this foundational premise: “I have zero military strength, possess no authority, have no one I can trust, and am trapped alongside fifteen strangers who could turn on me at any moment in a lawless territory ruled by an absolutely malicious power.”

Any simulation that ignores this fundamental starting point belongs to the realm of mental fantasy and loses all strategic meaning.

—————————————————————————————————

【Set Goals】

【Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】

【Personal Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】

【Current Objective Reality and Author's Deduction (Wolfgang's Perspective)】

Currently Known Information:

A strange smell was detected on the train, followed by loss of consciousness. Awakened in an unfamiliar environment (suspected chemical agent).

Against my will, an unknown watch-like device was attached to my wrist. Attempting to remove it triggers an electric shock (confirmed installed by the kidnappers). The device's shock capability is sufficient to render a person completely immobile and unconscious (as seen with Grace).

Surveillance cameras are present in the enclosed space (confirmed installed by the kidnappers).

Currently, 18 individuals are visible, including myself. Two of them (Tozu and Mara) exhibit clear hostility.

Besides myself, there are 15 others in the group. All claim to be fellow Ultimate students and Eden‘s Garden students who also lost consciousness on the same train and awoke here.

Everyone has an electric shock watch on their wrist.

No one claims to understand the current situation.

Author's Deduction:

External enemies can monitor the group and me at any time, yet the group and I cannot ascertain the enemy's status. This represents a complete failure in information war and intelligence war, meaning every word, action, and potential move by everyone will be exposed to the enemy in advance.

The watch's electric shock can instantly incapacitate a person, meaning everyone has essentially lost control over their own bodies. Like lambs led to slaughter, easily killed by the enemy at any moment.

Having gathered basic information about the group present (self-reported), the most plausible hypothesis is that they are fellow kidnapping victims. However, any individual—indeed, everyone except myself—could potentially be a malicious entity or an accomplice to the kidnappers.

General Physical Environment:

Enclosed space with multiple distinct areas.

Objective Enemy-Friendly Assessment:

Enemy 1

My (Wolfgang) physical condition remains stable, but I am unarmed and restrained by an electric shock bracelet.

Enemy presence estimated at least two individuals, possessing absolute tactical superiority with no constraints.

My (Wolfgang) intelligence is limited to the enemy's basic appearance, self-reported name, demands, and execution capability.

The enemy can monitor my (Wolfgang) every move in real-time via surveillance.

Enemy 2

Me (Wolfgang): 1 individual

Enemy (worst-case scenario): 15 individuals

New Information:

Kidnappers demand that the group engage in a “mutual killing game” (murderers’ process includes killing and a class trial) in exchange for an escape opportunity.

The kidnappers possess instant-kill lethal force, have demonstrated willingness to use it, and have threatened execution for crossing boundaries.

At least half of the group members have expressed aversion and hostility toward Damon and Eva's aggressive words and actions.

Author's Deduction:

At least two kidnappers have been confirmed, possessing lethal instant-kill capabilities and operating without any constraints from civilized norms.

The situation has temporarily stabilized, but there are no actual safeguards or protections in place. Chaos, collapse, and attacks could erupt at any moment.

Anyone may lose their physical mobility sovereignty at any time (electro-shock wristwatch).

No controllable variables exist for any Action Implementer except oneself.

No privacy in action.

No security guarantees.

No place to flee.

　　————————————

【Deduction Premise—The Existence of Internal Separatists】

【Action Choice Assumption—Acting on the Basis That “Damon and Eva Might Be Good People”】

【Set Goals 1—Personal survival rate (Based on Assumption)】

【Set Goals 2—Group survival rate (Based on Assumption)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Damon and Eva are spies planted by the Mastermind. Their existence and actions serve solely to divide and destroy the group, leading the entire group or its members toward death and self-destruction.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot guarantee that Damon and Eva are not spies. It is impossible to determine whether Damon and Eva's actions are malicious.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　——————

【Action Choice Hypothesis—Assuming “Damon and Eva are spies or internal separatists” as the premise】

【Set Goals 1—Personal survival rate (Based on Assumption)】

【Set Goals 2—Group survival rate (Based on Assumption)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Damon and Eva harbor no ill intent. This action leads to their exclusion by the group, ultimately resulting in injury or death to Damon and Eva/other group members.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot control Damon and Eva's true inner thoughts or identity, nor can they control the group's actions.

However, the action implementer can control their own words, actions, and handling methods to minimize losses.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Threatens the set goal.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Possesses basic controllability.

——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】

　　——————


【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

【Set Goals—Personal Survival Rate | Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】

“Intent,” “motivation,” and “inner thoughts” belong to the subjective realm—neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

In a life-or-death crisis, if I formulate my action choice using personal subjective conjecture rather than objective factual evidence as the basic element, it is suicidal, as all decision premises rest on pure expectation and fantasy.

Damon and Eva's actions explicitly target our own side, tacitly endorsed by the Mastermind's silence. This contradicts their recent threat of—“cross the line, face execution”—and constitutes observable objective behavioral evidence.

Therefore, Damon and Eva are highly likely to be spies planted by the Mastermind, or at the very least, highly unstable elements easily exploited—potential internal separatists.

Their intentions and actions must be presumed malicious by default.

Otherwise, I would be basing decisions on my own subjective wishful thinking (that they might be good people), gambling with the objective, real-life safety of everyone—including myself—in an irreversible, unguaranteed, self-destructive game of chance.

—————————————————————————————————

【Time Progression】

【Action Implementer (Wolfgang) Actual Action Choice】

Attempted to prevent Damon and Eva from participating in the investigation; withdrew after group dissent.

【Set Goals—Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

The group proposes splitting into two or more factions, plunging into internal strife and chaos, ultimately leading to collective collapse.

The Mastermind, sensing the opportunity, steps in to intervene, escalating conflicts and accelerating the group's self-destruction.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The Action Implementer cannot guarantee control over how the group and the Mastermind interpret and react to these actions.

However, the Action Implementer can control their own words and actions, attempting to influence and guide the situation.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　————



【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】

【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate Scenario】

Action Choices:

1. Not prevent Damon and Eva from participating in the investigation.

2. Support Damon and Eva's participation in the investigation.

3. Continue forcibly blocking Damon and Eva's participation after the group expresses opposition.

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Damon and Eva are spies planted by the Mastermind or internal separatists.

1. Damon and Eva covertly disrupt the investigation, even exploiting the situation to create conflict and chaos, reigniting the chain of panic and suspicion, steering the group toward self-destruction and annihilation.

2. Damon and Eva's destructive actions gain (the Action Implementer's) endorsement and validation, causing the group's behavioral baseline to collapse (since such actions now carry no consequences). The broken-window effect triggers an avalanche of self-destructive decline.

3. Factions within the group immediately fragment, plunging into division and infighting. This drastically weakens the group's resilience, sparking immediate violent conflict and providing ammunition for internal separatists and the Mastermind.

The above outlines only the most fundamental worst-case outcomes deduction.

Actual possible trajectories far exceed these, but further elaboration is omitted here due to space constraints.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

Action implementers cannot guarantee that the group and the Mastermind will interpret and react in a way that is consistent with their control.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　——————————————


【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate】

Damon and Eva are likely spies for the Mastermind.

Their motives are unknowable; only their actions can be measured.

Their objective actions have demonstrated clear directionality and aggression. At critical moments, they have extricated the Mastermind from deadlocked predicaments, destroyed what may have been the group's sole and final opportunity for resistance and negotiation, and solidified the Mastermind's power.

I cannot gamble on “they might mean well/act unintentionally.”

If the worst-case outcomes materialize—if they truly are malicious infiltrators—it would mean gambling with everyone's lives.

Since Damon and Eva and others' reactions and potential actions are uncontrollable, and since we cannot guarantee their malicious attacks won't occur, or that the group won't be threatened, I must assume the worst-case scenario: they are malicious infiltrators, the attacks will happen, and this cannot be stopped.

Therefore, the focus should not be on “attempting to prevent losses,” as that is unachievable and would create more unnecessary dangers, further accelerating destruction.

Rather, it should be on “how to make the extent of losses as manageable as possible” and “how to leverage inevitable losses to gain benefits.”

The Mastermind likely targeted me after yesterday's resistance. If I were the Mastermind, eliminating potential rebels would be my top priority. Everything now is a race against time—there's no room for waste or delay.

Preventing their participation in the investigation is the first step.

This isn't merely an information issue; the real key is to create psychological distance between the group and them.

If this effort succeeds in making the group perceive it as reasonable, subsequent risk management—such as persuading the group to isolate them long-term—will become significantly easier.

If they can be physically isolated for an extended period afterward, it will greatly reduce the unpredictable threats they are highly likely to pose to the group.

For Damon and Eva themselves, it's essentially the same situation.

At least half the group has already shown dissatisfaction or hostility toward them. Even if they refrain from attacking others, there's no guarantee the group won't attack them first—this remains equally unpredictable.

Isolating them would at least make their physical location and potential guard status publicly known information. This would increase the cost of an attack and create a deterrent.

Even in the worst-case scenario—where they attack others (like guards), or guards attack them—it would at least maximize the potential for a localized, traceable explosion with a limited scope. This is vastly preferable to a bomb detonating at an unknown location, targeting unknown individuals, and exploding on an unknown scale.　　

Moreover, by creating psychological distance between the group and them (isolation), even if they ultimately harm or kill others, there remains an opportunity to leverage narrative framing to minimize the impact on the group's psychological stability—emphasizing that “they were never one of us.” This prevents the foundation for confronting external enemies from collapsing prematurely, before any resistance capability or potential has even emerged.

In short, this is a stop-loss decision.

Even if losses occur, this incident can be leveraged to gauge the attitudes and potential stances of others within the group, observe the Mastermind's reactions, and gather more intelligence, and seize control and bargaining power by exploiting the operational space created by the outbreak.

The bomb will eventually explode. The only recourse is to control how it detonates and how to leverage the explosion and its aftermath.

The Mastermind's near-fatal strategic misstep yesterday proves they are not invincible—opportunities for counterattack exist.

Right. If I directly discuss strategy and situational assessments, given the group's level of chaos and instability yesterday, it would easily provoke confusion, resentment, or even hostility, giving the enemy more opportunities to exploit.

Therefore, packaging it as an intuitive emotional narrative and moral narrative, allowing the group to quickly understand and support it, is the most efficient and likely successful approach.

　　————
【Changes in Current Situation】

The group disagrees with stopping Damon and Eva from participating in the investigation.

I cannot continue to insist.

Persisting in stopping them would immediately cause a clear internal split, providing more ammunition and maneuvering space for internal separatists and external enemies instead. The situation becomes even more uncontrollable, and I would become the primary target. This is meaningless self-destruction.

If internal separatists cannot be stopped or controlled, then I can only abandon the last, possibly still retaining a sliver of initiative and controllability, damage-limiting plan. Entering a complete gamble mode.

Internal separatists must be seen as "already lost", along with any members they may harm or kill. The Mastermind won't pass up this opportunity, I must assume they will exploit this as weaponry and attack resources.

The only course is to ensure the group's core foundation (both physical and psychological) doesn't collapse before the explosion, and to lay the groundwork for minimizing losses when the explosion finally comes.

In fact, rather than passively waiting for an explosion to occur, it is better to proactively design circumstances that could trigger one.

For every day that internal dangers persist and external threats remain unclear, the group wastes another day in irreversible decline. The primary weapons of the Mastermind are psychological war and cognitive war. If the group's mental state is crushed by both internal erosion and external pressure, it will collapse without needing to be attacked.

Therefore, rather than letting the group be worn down to death, it is better to proactively design scenarios that could detonate the bomb, creating a possibility to break the deadlock.

If internal separatists truly launch an attack, then there arises an opportunity and legitimacy to eliminate them.

If external enemies truly act accordingly and plan an assault, then at least some maneuvering space is gained in the game. After all, if the opponent does nothing, then there is no starting point for countermeasures.

In any case, this creates opportunities to gather more intelligence. Without intelligence, no decisions can be made, let alone counterattacks.

　　————————————

【Set Goals—Personal Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

The group perceives the Action Implementer as a dangerous instigator and either violently suppresses them on the spot or designates them as a priority elimination target.

The Mastermind consequently flags the Action Implementer as the primary elimination target, exploiting the incident to orchestrate targeted incitement.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot guarantee control over the group and the Mastermind's interpretation and response to this situation.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　————
【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate if Deduction】

Action Choice:

Do not prevent Damon and Eva from participating in the investigation.

Minimize personal visibility; refrain from expressing clear opinions on any matter to avoid attracting attention from the group, internal separatists, or the Mastermind.

Steer clear of potential conflict hotspots; do everything possible to avoid becoming the focal point of decisions or scrutiny, whether positive or negative.

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Damon and Eva are spies.

The group descends into chaos and conflict, sliding toward collapse.

The Mastermind exploits the situation to incite and attack, driving the group into a self-destructive spiral.

The Action Implementer, trapped in a confined space, cannot escape.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

Action Implementer cannot control the actions of groups or the Mastermind.

However, Action Implementer can control their own words and actions, as well as their response methods, to attempt to maximize survival rate and extend survival time.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　——————————————

【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate】

Damon and Eva are likely spies for the Mastermind.

Yesterday, I attempted to break the Mastermind's narrative and framework. Though unsuccessful, I must now assume they've likely targeted me.

Eva has already attempted to label me a conspirator. Any further conspicuous action on my part could easily be weaponized against me.

Judging by the group's demonstrated instability and vacillation, they'll be easily persuaded and swayed to immediately turn their guns on me—regardless of whether my arguments hold merit.

Amidst the multiple dangers posed by internal separatists, the Mastermind, and unstable groups, drawing further attention would easily make me the first target to be eliminated.

Therefore, I can do nothing now, nor is anything necessary. Using other more conspicuous members and their conflicts as a shield is most advantageous for my personal survival.

I cannot guarantee the group won't collapse entirely, leaving me unable to escape. Nor can I ensure future disputes among them won't engulf me. Doing nothing means relinquishing all potential control and forfeiting the chance to build personal credibility that might secure future opportunities.

But at least for now, I can protect myself temporarily and strive to survive.

　　—————————————————————————————————

【Time Progression】

【Current Objective Reality and Author's Deduction (Wolfgang's Perspective)】

New Information:

The group disagrees with blocking Damon and Eva's investigation.

The Mastermind claims there is a “secret” in the room behind the door.

The Mastermind has enacted the current rules of mutual killing.

Objective Assessment of Enemy and Friendly Conditions:

Enemy 1

My (Wolfgang) physical condition has not deteriorated, but I am unarmed and restrained by an electric shock bracelet.

The enemy is presumed to consist of at least two individuals, possessing absolute tactical superiority and operating without constraints.

I (Wolfgang) possess no intelligence beyond the enemy's basic appearance, self-reported name, demands, and execution capability.

Enemy surveillance monitors my (Wolfgang) every movement in real time.

Enemy 2

Me (Wolfgang): 1 individual

Enemy (worst-case scenario): 15 individuals

【Key Deduction】

The “mutual killing rule” promulgated by Tozu does not contain a clause stating that only the first killer counts.

This implies that if a group genuinely accepts the framework of a mutual killing game, there will be no constraints from rule-based cost-benefit calculations (since someone is already dead, killing again offers no benefit) to restrain them.

The worst-case outcomes would not be “one member killed and one murderer executed,” but rather multiple members consecutively killing each other, triggering a cycle of internal collapse and potentially sliding directly into collective internal slaughter.

Under these conditions, any factor capable of triggering a chain-reaction collapse and mass panic carries a high risk of igniting the fuse for snowballing destruction.

　　————————————

【Action Implementer (Wolfgang) Actual Action Choice】

Agree to the group investigating the room.

【Set Goals — Group Survival Rate (Based on Assumptions)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

A dangerous secret entity is indeed present in the room. Some members discover it and use it to injure or kill others.

This triggers group unrest and panic, initiating an internal self-destruction cycle that may lead to a class trial (if the Mastermind holds one)

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The Action Implementer cannot control the group members' discoveries or actions.

However, the Action Implementer can control how they handle the occurrence of the worst-case outcomes and potential subsequent events.

（Detailed below）

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Threatens the set goal.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Possesses basic controllability.

——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】

　　——————


　

【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】

【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate Deduction】

Action Choice: Prevent the group from investigating the room.

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Immediately triggers suspicion and unrest within the group, reigniting and accelerating internal divisions.

Provides ammunition for internal separatists and the Mastermind to attack.

The group becomes even more fixated on the “secret” of the Mastermind, fueling anxiety and competitive instincts. This ultimately escalates into irreversible violent incidents, potentially causing casualties and directly triggering a snowballing cycle of collective self-destruction.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot control how group members interpret their own actions or their subsequent behavior.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　————

【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate】

The mastermind claims there's a secret behind the door.

This so-called secret doesn't need to be a physical object—it's merely bait used by the mastermind to cultivate a gambler's mentality and a chain of suspicion.

The goal is to let the group accumulate anxiety and hostility through their own speculations about what the secret is and who might possess it, ultimately erupting into murder.

The group's thoughts and actions cannot be controlled. The door cannot be sealed shut. Forcibly suppressing the group would likely trigger immediate internal strife.

The only option is to let the group investigate on their own, allowing them to derive a false sense of security and illusion of control through perceived information equality and investigative progress. This creates temporary reassurance, avoiding and delaying the full-scale outbreak of internal conflict.

If there truly exists a physical secret, and one or several individuals conceal it, the danger is significant.

Yet a single point of risk is preferable to the relentless spread of black-box speculation—a chain of suspicion that ultimately leads to total systemic collapse.

The rules of the Mastermind don't state that only the first killer counts. If serial killings and riots truly erupt, no one can stop them.

In the worst-case scenario, if someone uses the physical secret to cause destruction or harm, at least it would expose and eliminate unstable elements early on, while also creating an opportunity to gain strategic leverage.

Moreover, I cannot directly inform the group about the psychological manipulation and potential dangers of the secret.

Not only would that destroy the illusion-creating and enemy-luring functions, but more critically, I cannot control how the group would interpret it. This would provide ammunition for the Mastermind and internal separatists to launch attacks and create chaos, prematurely triggering panic and collapse.

And even if I did reveal it, the door couldn't be closed. It would only attract opportunists seeking secrets privately, while unnecessarily making me a target.

The group's judgment and stability have proven untrustworthy. Therefore, I cannot risk endangering stability without gain, nor can I risk relying on the group's judgment.

　　————

【Current Situation Changes】

Damon proposed locking the door.

Locking the door was unrealistic to begin with.

Even if tools could be found to lock it (and none are at hand), the door might be opened by someone without authorization, leaving the group more vulnerable to attack once their guard is down.

Moreover, if the group succumbs to a false sense of security from locking the door, the subsequent implosion triggered by discovering it opened would be far greater and more uncontrollable.

And the act of locking the door itself would trigger a chain of suspicion and internal collapse—such an action's success depends on the proposer having sufficient authority and the group possessing sufficient judgment and stability, neither of which is present here.

Hoping everyone will think rationally and “always obey” is a fantasy. Decisions cannot be based on fantasy.

Furthermore, Damon's current status is “suspected spy.”

To avoid overlooking the worst-case outcomes, his words and actions must be presumed malicious.

Any proposal he makes could be an attempt to test my vulnerabilities, gather ammunition for attacks and incitement, or serve enemy objectives.

If I proactively display unease or distrust toward the group, it could immediately become an exploitable breach for the enemy.

With zero resources, an authority vacuum, and a trust vacuum, locking the door of consent could instantly detonate all these structural risks.

The only viable option is not to accelerate the system's collapse prematurely. Even if I must take risks, they should only be undertaken when there is a potential for verifiable gain.

　　——————————
　

【Action Implementer (Wolfgang) Actual Action Choice】

Agree to the group's investigation of the room.

【Set Goals — Personal survival rate (Based on Assumptions)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

The room does indeed contain a tangible secret and danger. A member discovers it and conceals it, targeting the Action Implementer for murder.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The Action Implementer cannot control the group members' discoveries or actions.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【derivative actions and Deduction based on this self-destructive choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　————

【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】

【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate Simulation】

Action Choices:

Do not prevent the group from investigating the room.

Afterward, avoid drawing attention or hostility from any party (the group, internal separatists, or the Mastermind) as much as possible. Minimize one's presence, including refraining from actively seeking secrets.

If possible, avoid any form of solitude afterward.

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Someone within the group discovers and conceals the secret of the dangerous entity, using it to execute a murder plan and selecting the action implementer.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot control the group members' discoveries or actions.

However, the action implementer can control their own actions to maximize their survival rate and increase the cost of the potential murderer.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【Derivative actions and Deduction based on this Self-Destructive Choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　——————

【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate】

The Mastermind claims the room behind the door holds a secret.

Whether this secret is merely psychological warfare bait or a physical object, I cannot prevent the group from entering to investigate.

Forcing them to stop would likely make me an immediate target for internal separatists, facing group suspicion and hostility. The Mastermind would have no reason to pass up this ammunition, and I could swiftly become the primary elimination target.

Therefore, intervention is pointless and detrimental to my survival.

The group will likely clash or quarrel over the investigation and the secret. I should remain inconspicuous, letting more visible members establish themselves as targets first. Avoid any conflicts and minimize the chances of malicious individuals prioritizing me as their objective.

Secrecy offers no guaranteed benefits—its very existence is uncertain. Pursuing it too aggressively only makes me appear suspicious and invites hostility.

On one side lies an uncertain benefit, on the other a highly probable, catastrophic disadvantage. I cannot afford to choose.

After this, I can no longer act alone. This is a lawless zone where nothing is guaranteed.

This means I can no longer influence the course of events, cannot accumulate social or moral capital, and might even be seen as incompetent and cowardly.

But at the same time, I'm less likely to be perceived as a threat.

I cannot guarantee my long-term survival, but I can do everything possible to increase my short-term chances of staying alive.

At the very least, I must not be the first to die.

I cannot predict whether collective infighting will erupt after the first death, but I must at least survive until that moment.

　　—————————————————————————————————
【Time Progression】

【Current Objective Situation and Author's Deduction (Wolfgang's Perspective)】

New Information:　

Student records suddenly appeared on everyone's watches.

Eva abruptly declared that the records placed everyone in life-threatening danger and demanded that the group refrain from viewing them.

Objective Enemy-Friendly Assessment:

Enemy 1

Me (Wolfgang): Physical condition stable, unarmed, restrained by an electric wristband.

Enemy estimated to be at least two individuals, possessing absolute tactical superiority and no restraints.

Me (Wolfgang): No intelligence beyond the enemy's basic appearance, self-reported name, demands, and execution capability.

The enemy can monitor my (Wolfgang's) every move in real-time via surveillance.

Enemy 2

Me (Wolfgang): 1 individual

Enemy (worst-case scenario): 15 individuals

　　————————
　　

【Actual Action Choices for the Action Implementer (Wolfgang)】

Attempt to prevent the group from heeding Crow.

【Set Goals—Group survival rate (Based on Assumptions)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

The group descends into division and panic, leading to confrontation and chaos, potentially triggering immediate violent conflict on the spot, ultimately resulting in large-scale mutual killing.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot control the group's reactions or actions.

However, the action implementer can control their own words, actions, and behavior to influence the situation as much as possible.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Threatens the set goal.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Possesses basic controllability.

——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】

　　——————

【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】

【Set Goals: Group Survival Rate Simulation】

Action Choice: Do not prevent the group from believing Eva.

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

The group falls under the spy's control.

The group descends into an endless chain of panic and suspicion, its actions manipulated by the spy and steered toward certain destruction.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The Action Implementer cannot control any subsequent reactions or actions of the group.

　[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【Derivative actions and Deduction based on this Self-Destructive Choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　————

【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

[Set Goals: Group survival rate]

Eva suddenly claimed the data appearing on the watch would plunge the group into a life-or-death crisis.

Must be stopped.

Eva herself is a potential spy. All her actions must be presumed malicious.

The speed of the group being manipulated by Eva and internalizing her logic far exceeds expectations. If Eva is allowed to continue, the worst-case outcomes will be physical one-against-fifteen situations.

The watch cannot be removed, and the data on the watch cannot be cleared.

Since its existence cannot be controlled, the only option is to neutralize it temporarily, creating an illusion of safety.

If the group's perception truly becomes “others might use the unremovable item on my wrist to kill me,” they will plunge into perpetual, unstoppable anxiety, panic, and a chain of suspicion and infighting. This will ultimately weaken their psychological and mental defenses, leading to operational paralysis, sliding into a self-destructive cycle, and making them more vulnerable to exploitation and attack by external enemies and internal separatists.

Once this perception takes root, it becomes virtually impossible to eradicate—for neither the watch nor the data is within my control.

Any attempts at reassurance, persuasion, or effective decision-making will appear hollow and meaningless, as the group's rationality and capacity for judgment are lacking.

Therefore, I can only leverage this characteristic of the group, allowing them to temporarily overlook potential realities and avoid unbearable psychological burdens.

The emergence of the watch data is naturally part of the Mastermind trap, but currently, there is no countermeasure that does not jeopardize the group's foundational stability.

Right, I cannot get caught up in logical arguments. Time is running out, and the group is unlikely to comprehend it. Any debate would only give internal separatists a chance to exploit divisions.

　　————
【Action Implementer (Sheep) Actual Action Choice】

Attempt to prevent the group from listening to Eva.

【Set Goals — Personal survival rate (Based on Assumptions)】

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

The action implementer is targeted by potential spies/internal infiltrators, causing the group to unanimously turn against them, viewing the implementer as a threat to be eliminated.

The mastermind simultaneously flags the action implementer as a priority elimination target and exploits this to eliminate them.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot control the ultimate choices of the group or the mastermind.

[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]

Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?

Destruction of set goals.

Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?

Completely uncontrollable.

——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.

Therefore, 【Derivative actions and Deduction based on this Self-Destructive Choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.

　　————
【Action Choice: Author's Deduction】

【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate Simulation】

Action Choice:

Do not prevent the group from listening to Eva.

After this—

If anyone opposes Eva and the group listening to her, and conflict arises between the two sides, never proactively intervene, never proactively draw attention.

If no one opposes, never oppose any decisions made by Eva or the group. Unconditionally obey any request that does not directly endanger personal safety.

Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:

Eva is a spy. She will lead the group to destruction.

Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:

The action implementer cannot control the actions or decisions of the group or Eva.

However, the action implementer can control their own words and actions, striving to minimize the risk of being targeted and their short-term mortality rate.

——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】

　　————

【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】

【Note】:

Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.

Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”

【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate】

Eva suddenly claimed the data appearing on the watch would plunge the group into a life-or-death crisis.

Eva could very well be a spy.

This was her golden opportunity to exploit the situation, incite panic, seize control of the group, and steer them toward destruction.

The speed at which the group was manipulated far exceeded expectations. With just a few words from Eva, the group internalized her logic and prepared to follow her commands.

I couldn't do anything; I had to remain silent immediately.

The moment I spoke, even the slightest doubt, I could become the target Eva used to suppress dissent and serve as a warning to others. The manipulated group would likely turn their guns on me in unison.

In the worst-case scenario, I might not even make it out of this pharmacy safely.

After that, I couldn't do anything—nothing that might draw the group's ire toward me.

If opponents emerged, or if Eva's subsequent actions provoked the group's opposition, let them clash on their own.

Whether the dissenters were suppressed, Eva and her supporters overthrown, or if the Mastermind stepped down, I had to stay away. The farther the danger was from me, the better.

I can no longer control the course of events, cannot guarantee I won't be implicated, cannot guarantee anything. I've lost all control over future possibilities.

But I avoided the immediate risk of becoming a victim.

If I play my cards right afterward, I might even extend my survival time.

　　—————————————————————————————————
　　　

【Time Progression】

【Current Objective Situation and Author's Deductions (Wolfgang's Perspective)】

New Information:

Eva left the pharmacy; group sentiment shifted toward supporting Wolfgang.

Objective Enemy-Friendly Conditions Assessment:

Enemy 1

Me (Wolfgang): Physical condition stable, unarmed, restrained by an electric shock bracelet.

Enemy presumed to be at least two individuals, possessing absolute tactical superiority and operating without constraints.

I (Wolfgang) possess no intelligence beyond the adversary's basic appearance, self-reported name, demands, and execution capability.

The enemy can monitor my (Wolfgang's) every movement in real-time via surveillance.

Enemy 2

Me (Wolfgang): 1 individual

Enemy (worst-case scenario): 15 individuals

　　——————