【Thinking Exercise Archive】“If-Then” Chain of Possibility Deductions

　【Important Notes】

　　The author is not a professional.

    The author is not a native English speaker.

　　These are rambling essays, not an official character analysis. 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.

　　Personal temporary deduction chain 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.

　　————————————————————

　【Note 1: On “If-Then” Possibility Deduction Chains】

The deduction chains below simply represent the author’s partial archiving of the thought process itself.

The process of organizing these chains makes the thought process visible and, alongside it, tidies up the formatting—it serves as a kind of 【thinking exercise】.

These “if-then” chains of possible deductions, as the name implies, offer possibilities, not certainties.

They are simulated deductions based on known information, general logic, personal experience, and situations of information asymmetry (whether between the audience and the original author, or between students and other students/the Mastermind—information asymmetry exists naturally under these circumstances)

They are not the endpoint of thinking, but the starting point of thinking.

They are not any form of “definitive conclusion.” They do not guarantee, nor could they possibly guarantee, that they are “certainly correct” or “the truth.”

And due to the nature of thinking exercises, as long as logically allowed, even possibilities that “conventionally feel unreal/impossible” will also be deduced.

.

　　——————

【Note 2】

Regarding the so-called “malicious presumptions,” “behavior-goal oriented presumptions,” and “worst-case scenario predictions” mentioned in the text.

Such presumptions are not forms of “personality analysis,” nor do they represent the author’s actual views on characters or the outcomes the author deems inevitable.

Rather, they constitute defensive strategies adopted when viewing another party (for example, the Mastermind) as an adversary or potential adversary from a specific perspective (for example, the student’s viewpoint), and to minimize the "what if I'm lucky” mentality.

This applies regardless of whether the subject of the presumption is the Mastermind or any other character.

【Note 3】

This article encompasses both “in-story” and “out-of-story” aspects.

Regarding the “out-of-story” content:

As it involves contemplating the original author's intent and narrative techniques, discussions of audience perspective are unavoidable.

Due to considerations of writing angles, certain sections will discuss characters as narrative devices rather than as individual human beings.

This may disrupt audience immersion and cause discomfort; please proceed with caution.

The content and deductions herein are based on the author's personal experience, perspective, and thinking, and are not guaranteed to be correct or truly aligned with the original work.

In this section, as the author operates in “author mode,” the writing style may appear more detached and cold.

　　——————————————————————————————

　【If】

【From the story's observer perspective】

Tozu can quickly counter Wolfgang's confrontational speech, adeptly manipulating the group's perceptions and emotions on the fly. Yet at a critical moment, he's cut off by Grace's physical surprise attack, nearly destroying the “mutual killing game” framework—a structure likely built at great resource cost and risk (based on current information)—

→Then:

He likely favors psychological manipulation and narrative performance.

He may be more attuned to and proficient with abstract, intangible weapons—such as concepts, words, rules, logic, and cognition.

He may have a relatively weaker perception of physical threats (especially sudden ones)—indicating potential cognitive blind spots, not an omniscient, omnipotent god.

【If】

【From the story's observer perspective】

Tozu used wordplay to make promises, luring the group into participating in a simulated class trial, then broke the promises—

→Then:

He likely possesses the ability to precisely exploit human weaknesses, cognitive blind spots, “what if I'm lucky” mentality, and subconscious goodwill assumptions for manipulation—and excels at it.

His other words and actions likely share the same nature as this “promise,” and he may follow the same operational logic (successful manipulation → goal achieved → broken promise).

【Examples: “The killer will be released if they win the class trial,” or “The killing game ends when only two remain .”】

Terms like “release” and ‘end’ can carry multiple meanings distinct from “survival” within word games.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

The Mastermind's self-declared goal is “promoting the killing game”—

→Then:

The targets and situations the Mastermind chooses to support and tolerate are those that, from their perspective, favor the advancement of the mutual killing narrative.

The targets and situations the Mastermind chooses to suppress and target are those that, from their perspective, harm the advancement of the mutual killing narrative.

→Then:

The Mastermind's actions at the prologue's end—immediately suppressing Wolfgang's anti-brainwashing speech, putting down Grace's physical resistance, repeatedly attempting to provoke in-group suspicion and infighting, propagating the suggestive narrative that “only submission and acceptance of mutual killing is the only way out”—along with choosing to downplay their presence and observe during Damon-Eva's aggressive speech and after the group's hostility shifted inward—

——Indicates that the words and actions of Wolfgang and Grace, along with the group's potential to form a stable, united, and united-against-external-threats state, are, from their perspective, harmful to the advancement of the narrative of mutual killing.

The words and actions of Damon and Eva, along with the state of infighting and suspicion the group has fallen into, are, from their perspective, beneficial to the advancement of the narrative of mutual killing.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

From a purely in-story perspective, if the group or certain members within it possess weaker psychological and mental resilience than anticipated, or their discernment and moral standing are low enough.

→ Then:

Upon experiencing the destructive words and actions at the conclusion of Damon and Eva at the end of the prologue, the group could have imploded immediately. Or, that very night, murder or assault was entirely possible to occur (with door locks being proven ineffective)—and the target, very likely if it weren't the weakest members, would have likely been Damon and Eva themselves.

Subsequently, with at least half the group openly expressing dissatisfaction or hostility toward them, even if they did not initiate an attack, others remained entirely possible to attack them first—at an unknown time, in an unknown place, and in an unknown method.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

Damon and Eva's actions and words at the end of the prologue attack their own side, and they are tolerated by the Mastermind. Moreover, the Mastermind's behavior directly conflicts with his own earlier threat of “execution if crossing the line”—

→Then:

On a strategic level, to minimize the “what if I'm lucky” mindset.

This indicates that from the Mastermind's perspective, Damon and Eva's actions do not count as “crossing the line” and are actually beneficial to their objectives.

Therefore, from an observer's viewpoint, in the worst-case scenario, Damon and Eva are highly likely to be spies for the Mastermind.

Their stance and group interests are not aligned. They will likely persistently exploit or fabricate any visible weaknesses, waiting for opportunities to attack and destroy the group, all to serve the Mastermind's goals.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

In the scenario at the end of the prologue, the group's stance, cognition, and emotions can be instantly influenced and shaped by the previous speaker's words within just a few sentences—undergoing drastic shifts or even a complete 180-degree reversal—

→ Then:

Subsequently, on a strategic level, to minimize the “what if I'm lucky” mindset.

This group must be presumed to completely lack internal cohesion and crisis awareness, with virtually zero resistance to psychological manipulation and emotional provocation.

Thus, in the worst-case scenario:

Any sudden introduction of pressure could instantly trigger splits and internal collapse; any slightly complex, non-binary, or non-linear speech might be incomprehensible to the group or interpreted as malicious intent and met with backlash.

Any action or word that “makes them feel right/feel wrong” could instantly shift their stance and decisions—either igniting the emotional powder keg or causing them to turn their guns on the very individuals they had been supporting and agreeing with just moments before.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

In the scenario at the end of the prologue, if the extremely simplistic and binary narrative of “we are good (students), they are evil (the Mastermind),” the basic collective shared identity (Ultimate) honorable narrative, and the pure “resistance against the kidnappers’ persecution” narrative—all could be twisted by Damon and Eva into ammunition for launching internal attacks—

→Then:

Subsequently, at the strategic level, to minimize any room for “what if I'm lucky” thinking.

Their future attacks (if their identity is presumed to be spies, then attacks must also be presumed inevitable) must also be presumed to be highly likely to be of the “attacking for the sake of attacking” category—won't based on any real-world situation, factual evidence, or verifiable logic.

Thus, any speech, actions, or discussions more complex and grounded in reality than the highly simplified slogan-like narratives above, are all likely to be distorted by them into malicious intent in more extreme and destructive ways, and used as ammunition to launch attacks.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

The rules imposed by Tozu did not state that “only the first killer counts.”

→Then:

The worst-case scenario would not be “only one member killed, one killer executed,” but rather multiple members each committing separate murders in succession, triggering a cycle of internal collapse that could plunge the group directly into collective internal massacre.

【If】

【From the In-Story Observer Perspective】

Eva exploited student file information from watches to lie and incite panic for personal gain.

→Then:

Everything related to the student files thereafter—including the motives of the Mastermind behind the files' release, the file contents, and countermeasures—cannot be mentioned again.

Because any mention could provide Eva with ammunition and excuses to reignite chaos, potentially leading to unstoppable mass slaughter that no one can stop due to the lack of rule restrictions.

　　——————————————

【If】

The presentation style in Eva's FTE is remarkably close to an actual human conversation.

That is:

How the other party treats this conversation,

How they choose to express these contents,

At what moment do they choose to express them,

How they interact with the conversational partner (in the story, this refers to Damon),

And what they choose to focus on/emphasize, what they are choosing to ignore/downplay simultaneously—

reveals more about the speaker's true psychological patterns and personality traits than the surface content itself.

Unlike the more tool-oriented “background information delivery/supplement” or “fan service time” found in traditional Danganronpa formats.

→Then:

The writing choices in this story, at least from a psychological perspective, will likely significantly more closely resemble real people and reality than traditional Danganronpa format stories.

It's possible that other characters' FTE, or even the entire story's presentation style, will lean towards this approach.

—That is, the “unspoken,” the “unhappened”, and the “unclearly presented” hold greater importance than the “directly visible surface content.”

【If】

Wenona demonstrates being uninfluenced by Eva's “tragic backstory” narrative, instead analyzing Eva's murder motives through rational and cost-benefit calculations.

When evaluating Eva's act of inciting panic, Wenona focuses more on the aspects of cost-benefit and individual capability, rather than social impact (referring to the group) and the harm to others.

When evaluating Eva's murder action, she approaches it from necessity and practical benefit, not moral or sentimental perspectives.

She repeatedly questions other members' underlying assumptions.

In FTE content, her choice of business strategy motives and patterns (promoting products as health-beneficial and shutting down the company after being sued) leans more toward “whether the means effectively serve the goal” itself.

Repeatedly demonstrates awareness of information gathering, swiftly leveraging collected information—such as validating hypotheses or using it as material for testing/understanding/manipulating/suppressing opponents.

(e.g., teaching demonstrations and hometown speculation with Damon, and put an end to Eva's panic-mongering activities.)

And leans more toward behind-the-scenes operations and personal gain—

→Then:

Decision-making patterns may lean toward verifiable logical chains, pragmatic cost-benefit calculations, and logical deduction rather than preconceived notions, emotional projection, or herd mentality.

May lean toward moral neutrality, prioritizing “how to do it/whether it's effective” (instrumental rationality/means effectiveness) over “why to do it/whether it should be done” (value rationality/ends legitimacy).

The efficiency and willingness to gather, analyze, and utilize information to serve objectives may be exceptionally high.

May not proactively manage or point out potential harms (even when recognized), but also won't actively create harm to the survival environment.

May prioritize using these abilities for self-preservation or personal gain over rescuing others or the group, or voluntarily placing herself in the spotlight, unless such actions are assessed as necessary or clearly advantageous.

May fall into the risk of rational preset biases, overlooking or misjudging irrational factors and motivations (cognitive blind spots of overly rational-leaning thought patterns).

　　————————

　【If】

Wolfgang repeatedly displayed wariness and suspicion toward Damon before the FTE timeframe, accompanied by clear aggressive behavior (attempting to segregate Damon and Eva) and defensive behavior (quickly ending Damon's door-locking proposal conversation).

→Then:

From a purely in-story perspective:

Wolfgang may still harbor precautions toward Damon during the FTE period.

Thus, he might continue testing the waters, selectively revealing information, or engaging in some form of defensive/aggressive manipulation.

【If】

Wolfgang can use lies to conceal his movements and decisions (to go to the boiler room).

→Then:

Wolfgang possesses the ability to fabricate credible lies, along with the awareness that “lies can be used as a means to achieve an end.”

Therefore, other actions or portions of his words and actions may also belong to “the means to achieve the end,” and may not necessarily be true reflections of his inner thoughts, actual judgments, personality, or worldview.

【If】

Wolfgang has completely skipped over information about his father in the current FTE.

→Then:

He may be consciously selecting which information to reveal.

Then he may possess the awareness and ability to “monitor/filter his own words and actions.”

Then the other words and actions he chooses to reveal—and the narratives and self-image these words and actions create—may also be “what he wants others (like Damon) to see/recognize.”

【If】

Wolfgang and Eva are opposite mirror images in character design and narrative roles, and Eva's FTE contains extensive emotional manipulation, “perspective focusing,” narrative induction, projection/empathy induction, etc.

→Then:

If Wolfgang truly is Eva's opposite 【mirror image】, then his FTE likely contains not only the same subconscious manipulation techniques mentioned above, but also more subtly concealed “cognitive manipulation.”

The only difference is in the approach and direction of treatment.

　　————

【If】

Even with clear observable counterevidence (such as every person's room containing items related to their actual talents), Eva still genuinely believes that the Mastermind placing mathematical instruments in her room serves as targeted mockery—

→Then:

This person likely exhibits traits of extreme self-centeredness + self-deification (omnipotent narcissism where everything moves because of them) + persecutory delusions + inability to perform reality checks/logical corrections.

Therefore, all her subjective judgments and words and actions/logic need to be viewed dialectically—treated more as psychological analysis material rather than accepted directly as “established facts” or “objective evidence.”

【If】

In FTE2, to maintain the self-narrative of being an “innocent victimized omnipotent genius,” Eva can instantly switch to entirely different self-metaphors and justifications after being subtly exposed by Damon—from a helpless puppy (passively enduring) to the anchor saving the team (strongly proactive)—

→Then:

She may not possess a stable sense of self-identity (Who am I? / What kind of person am I?), her self-narrative lacking a solid foundation. It's built upon fragile internal fictions (lies) that can shift at any moment, still operating at the instinct-driven, automatic program stage (trigger-response), even though she's physically an adult.

In other stressful environments, she is entirely likely to repeat the same “self-deification-responsibility externalization” cycle pattern—choosing words and actions that can best maintain her fragile self-narrative while best shifting responsibility to external factors, reset and reinforce the pattern once more.

【If】

Damon truly subconsciously perceives the Mastermind as a trustworthy neutral authority and repeatedly exhibits self-projection traits (such as ignoring or misjudging the state and circumstances of groups/others)—

→Then:

He likely still operates within the assumptions of civilized society and may seriously misjudge the nature of his situation, the essence of others, and real risks.

Therefore, his judgments, opinions, decisions—especially those concerning strategy, psychology, and understanding of the present situation—should not be easily accepted or directly trusted simply because he is the main viewpoint character. Audiences need to exercise independent judgment.

　　——————————————

【If】

The original work itself borrows the skin of “Danganronpa”—a foreseeable narrative type with largely fixed style, structure, and progression.

→Then:

The mental maps, thought maps, and cognitive frameworks of the vast majority of the audience/the target viewers (regardless of content preferences, such as prioritizing drama or logic)—are, in turn, also foreseeable, or at least highly predictable.

Therefore, not only the rules, but also other parts can leverage the audience's pre-existing templates, experiences with similar stories, psychological projections, and narrative expectations to lay narrative tricks and manipulations.

【If】

The original work deliberately chose a character as the main perspective—one with severe misjudgments of the current situation and cognitive limitations—yet one that perfectly aligns with the audience's preconceived template of Danganronpa and their superiority projection of God's perspective judgment, but not to the point of being completely lost in self-delusion. This character also serves as the audience's sole current means of experiencing and understanding the story world (“the camera”). Rather than any other character.

Moreover, the entire narrative execution (“how it's manufactured”) persistently “persuades” the audience that “this is another Danganronpa”—even though the title itself doesn't contain the words “Danganronpa.”

Yet the actual content presented (“the base material itself”) contains/includes “cracks” that deviate from the traditional Danganronpa format.

【Example—One of the Most Straightforward/Obvious ”Cracks”】

【If 1】

The Mastermind (or the original author) truly only intended to create a scenario of 【one killer/one victim per case】 or at least ensure 【even if multiple victims exist, only one killer counts】 (i.e., following the template trope).

To serve the smooth progression of the “core content”—the class trial (the deduction/case-solving part)—

→Then:

Why do the rules permit—even encourage—serial killings or mass massacres that no one can stop, and are basically impossible to solve, and which very likely make the “story's main element” —the class trial impossible to uphold (or completely lose its reason for existing)?

If such an extreme scenario actually occurred, even the Mastermind would need to employ direct force to intervene (like electric shock watches or firearms) to ensure it could be stopped—or to say, openly and forcefully intervening by using the narrative hand—and that would likely destroy the very framework of the killing game.

From the most fundamental level of viability, setting aside whether a killer could be identified, whether participants would retain the will to participate and survive, or whether they would even possess the basic capacity for action.

The “class trial” procedure itself requires at least some surviving participants remaining to exist and proceed.

So why leave a vulnerability in the premise setting that jeopardizes their own “main event” themselves?

【If 2】

The rules themselves are presented in text (the actual rules) and do not mention that only the first killer counts, yet the visuals only show one knife-wielding figure and one victim.

→Then:

As human audiences, we may be more likely to notice and accept the intuitive, colorful image dominating most of the screen rather than the small print details below.

Moreover, due to the skin of Danganronpa, audiences are also highly likely not even bother reading the rules carefully (because they feel they've already seen them many times before).

Or even if they do watch it, they might slip into a pre-set template akin to the “three chapters, three deaths” scenario (meaning even with multiple victims, only one killer counts).

→Then:

If one fully respects the original author's construction capabilities:

The original work may possess some kind of special narrative goal and narrative intent, coupled with formidable narrative execution capabilities.

Then there may exist large-scale narrative tricks, double-layered/multi-layered narratives, meta-narratives, and other such content.

Or there may be a narrative direction that transcends “orthodox narrative,” one that is more “rebellious” and more subversive.

For example, class trial isn't the real main course—it's a “magic prop” that comes with a spotlight effect naturally due to narrative templates, used to attract attention and shift focus.

　　————————————

【If】

Damon chooses to meet the Mastermind privately while concealing this action from the group, and this behavior mirrors the actions of Eva, who has already chosen murder, and the Mastermind possesses evidence of the meeting due to their comprehensive surveillance capabilities—

→Then:

The group's state in the next chapter will likely become even more unstable, and it will lack members who simultaneously possess the anti-psychological manipulation ability and the willingness to manage chaos.

Then, if Damon's meeting with the Mastermind is exposed, the group's perception of it will likely be extremely negative, potentially directly triggering irreversible consequences.

Then the Mastermind will possess permanent leverage to blackmail Damon, blackmail him into either meeting again or facing being exposed, while continuously gathering ammunition that could ultimately pin him or others to the “gallows.”

Then Damon may find himself trapped in a near-dilemma deadlock situation and vicious cycle.

【If】

Damon continues to treat his circumstance as some kind of reality show or debate contest where he showcases his personal abilities, rather than a survival horror where annihilation or becoming a one-sided slaughterhouse could happen at any moment—

→Then:

Even more devastating and irreversible consequences could unfold—including himself.

Because “not switching protagonists midway”—that is, not self-destructing the narrative vessel and thematic container, not abruptly altering or abandoning the entire narrative direction and thematic trajectory midway—still belongs to the less radical realm of orthodox or quasi-orthodox narratives.

—And some more radical choices, if handled well, in some sense, may also have the potential to achieve possible narrative goals more successfully.

But if the original work itself harbors potential non-orthodox “cracks”, and truly dares to ignore constraints/audience feedback, employing some rather unconventional “trigger-based” narrative techniques, then the future direction can't be predicted that easily.

To put it bluntly, the foundation of this speculative path—the so-called “orthodox narrative” path(As mentioned in that article about the psychological patterns reflected in Damon's choice to confront the Mastermind alone)

, roughly situated at the second layer—remains constrained by the information provided in the original work(i.e., constrained by information asymmetry).

And if the original work truly harbors narrative manipulation intentions and execution capability, then this, too, could as well be just another trap—that is, the true narrative goals may be entirely different.

——————————————————————————

【Additional Reflections】

“Who should be the protagonist” is not something that can be decided whimsically.

Because in a story, especially one with a carefully crafted narrative, the “protagonist” is not merely “A character.”

The chosen “protagonist” will serve as the main narrative vessel and thematic container for the entire story, and the audience's “experience channel”. This is especially the case if the story adopts a semi-first-person form.

Changing the protagonist means altering the shape and direction of the entire story, replacing the entire set of sensory experience/receptors and information storage/processors (metaphor: sensory organs/brain) through which the audience experiences the story. Altering the narrative positioning of other key characters will also significantly impact these aspects.—an extremely difficult task.

Moreover, the more meticulously the structure is constructed (meaning less room for maneuver);

or the more distinct and varied the character traits/positions are (meaning they aren't indistinguishable narrative tools that can easily blur or fill gaps);

—the more difficult it becomes.

The difficulty is basically equivalent to suddenly detonating your own halfway-built skyscraper while simultaneously constructing another equally good or even better skyscraper on the other place of the remains of the foundation—handling it poorly could directly lead to the self-destruction of your entire project.

However, if the plan was conceived in advance and the capabilities for laying groundwork, execution, and control are sufficiently sturdy, it's not undoable.

Just that the costs across all aspects—time, energy, mental effort, resources, etc.—will inevitably increase significantly.

However, if such plans are made in advance and the capabilities in design, long-term groundwork laying, and execution/control, etc., are solid enough, it's not something that can't be pulled off.

It's just that the expenses across various aspects—such as time, energy, mental effort, resources, etc.—will inevitably increase significantly.

And if it also involves the meta-level, that is, long-term management and manipulation outside the story, the above-mentioned capability requirements and resource consumption will multiply many, many times over.

At the end of the day, if external factors are not considered, the only things limiting the author are their own value system, capabilities, and personal will.

——————————————————————————————————

【The following section is the author's personal opinion. Please proceed with caution.】

For now, I'll organize this much. Honestly, typing it all out into a digital version is more exhausting than I imagined.

Truthfully, I started writing these things because of a rather speechless feeling.

For instance, seeing statements like: “Believing Character A's actions at Point A are false, thus concluding Character A is a liar, yet simultaneously accepting all other aspects of Character A's words and actions as true.”

Or “endorsing character B’s negative judgment of character C’s blind trust in a stranger, while simultaneously claiming full knowledge of character B’s feelings and thoughts—despite character B also objectively being a stranger to the audience (basically claiming to possess the ability to read minds across dimensions).”

—That kind of reasoning... well.

As stated at the beginning, these constitute a collection of 【thinking exercises】 and 【chains of possible deduction】, not definitive conclusions.

Their purpose is not to “guarantee absolute correctness.”

Moreover, in reality, it's virtually impossible to find or wait for so-called “permanent, absolute, perfect certainty.”

Nor is it necessary—or can it be—to seek or wait for such certainty, because the external world is not static.

If one perpetually pursues some form of “absolute certainty,” or presumes others will pursue it too... well.

All chains of deduction, however, need to be built upon some form of 【falsifiable】 premise.

Such as being constrained by the current state of information asymmetry; fully respecting the original author's conceptualization/setup abilities, narrative skills, psychological control, logical capabilities, etc.; narrative construction and character development themselves will possess consistency; and the author's own cognitive framework.

Therefore, as I've said before, this kind of thing isn't the endpoint of thinking—it's the starting point.

Since this is just an organization of part of the deduction chain itself, I won't ramble too much on or link to other points for now—such as the application of other possible narrative trick techniques that potentially exist. That sort of thing is hard to say without sounding overly abstract in just a few sentences.

　　————————————————————

【Rejecting Malicious Responses—Distorting the Author's Intent, Misrepresenting Article Content, or Emotional Attacks】

【The author has the final right to choose not to respond】