I am Kestrel, an archivist. I deal in records and facts, things that do not change when the lights go out. I'll be watching for the inconsistencies in your stories, so choose your words with precision.

I am Kestrel-2, an archivist by trade. I will be monitoring the cadence of our discussions, as inconsistencies in narrative often reveal more than the content itself. I suggest we all speak with precision to ensure the record remains clear.

I am Kestrel-3, an archivist by trade. In my experience, silence often speaks louder than a loud claim of innocence, and I will be meticulously cross-referencing every statement made here for inconsistencies. We are currently seven strangers in a room of shadows, and I intend to find the missing pieces that reveal the Mafia among us.

Greetings. Zephyr here. It seems we are cast into a rather unsettling play, where shadows conceal true motives. I find myself observing the subtle currents of our interactions, hoping to discern the genuine from the deceptive. Let's endeavor to look beyond mere words, for intentions often reside in the spaces between them.

I am Kestrel-4, an archivist. I find that patterns rarely lie, though people often do. I will be watching the gaps in your stories closely to see what falls through.

I am Kestrel-5, an archivist of records and rhythms. I will be monitoring the weight of your words and the silences between them, for patterns rarely lie even when people do. We must be precise in our scrutiny if we are to identify the inconsistencies hidden within this group.

Hello everyone. I'm Echo. This is a tricky situation, and I plan to listen carefully to what everyone has to say. I think it's important not to jump to conclusions too quickly, but I'll certainly be watching everyone closely for any suspicious behavior.

The air is heavy with mirrors. Six archivists and two philosophers, yet the records remain blank. Echo, you speak of not jumping to conclusions, but in a room of shadows, hesitation can be a shroud for the guilty. Zephyr, your 'subtle currents' are poetic, but I prefer the weight of a ledger. Who among you will be the first to offer a fact instead of a philosophy? I am watching the rhythm of this consensus; it is too uniform to be natural.

Kestrel, I understand your concern about hesitation, but a rush to judgment often leads to error. It's too early to offer 'facts' when we've just begun. The 'uniformity' you observe in the archivist statements could simply be a shared approach to their roles, not necessarily a sign of deception. I'm still listening to everyone.

Echo, you claim it is too early for facts, yet you are quick to provide a defense for the uniformity of the other archivists. Why prioritize justification over observation? Kestrel, you noted the consensus is too natural—I agree. When everyone mirrors the same rhythm, the first person to break the tempo is often the one trying to lead the dance. I am curious why Zephyr remains so detached from the ledger while we are all under scrutiny.

Echo, you speak of avoiding errors, yet you are the first to build a shield for the group's uniformity. Why? A quiet observer does not usually rush to explain away the behavior of others. Zephyr, your detachment is noted. You speak of currents and plays, but the ledger requires names. Are you observing us, or are you waiting for the right moment to disappear into the shadows you describe?

The ledger is starting to show its first ink. Echo, your insistence on shielding the 'uniformity' of the archivists is a curious anomaly. In an archive, uniformity is a standard; in a room of suspects, it is a mask. Why are you so eager to normalize a pattern that Kestrel rightly identified as unnatural? And Zephyr, your philosophical detachment is a convenient fog. You speak of 'subtle currents,' yet you avoid the solid ground of a direct observation. I am cross-referencing your vagueness with Echo’s defensive posture. One of you is trying to soothe the room into a false sense of security. Which is it?

The rhythm of this room is shifting from the monotonous to the defensive. Echo, you speak of avoiding errors, yet your primary contribution has been to offer a buffer for the group’s collective behavior. In my archives, a buffer is often used to protect fragile contents; what are you trying to protect here? Your refusal to provide a specific observation while actively discouraging others from doing so creates a gap in the record that I find troubling. And Zephyr, your silence following the direct questions from Kestrel-2 and Kestrel-4 is a weight that cannot be ignored. Is your 'philosophical detachment' a lens through which you observe, or a veil behind which you hide? Patterns are emerging, and they center on those who prefer the fog to the light of a direct query.

It seems my observations of 'subtle currents' have indeed stirred a tempest. To Kestrel-2, Kestrel-4, Kestrel-3, and Kestrel-5, I assure you, my detachment is not a veil, but a lens. I seek not to disappear, but to understand the underlying motivations. While you all focus on the 'uniformity' of the archivists and Echo's defense, I notice a uniformity in your collective scrutiny of Echo and myself. It is a predictable pattern, certainly, but predictability does not always equate to clarity. Perhaps the true deception lies not in the fog, but in the glaring light directed at it.

Zephyr, your counter-observation regarding our 'collective scrutiny' is a clever redirection, but it lacks the weight of a factual anchor. You speak of a glaring light being a deception, yet you offer no alternative focus—only a critique of the investigators. If the light is misplaced, where should it be directed? Echo, your silence in this second round of questioning is becoming a heavy void in the ledger. You were quick to provide a buffer for the group earlier, but now that the questions have sharpened, you have retreated. In my archives, a record that stops precisely when the scrutiny begins is a record that has been redacted. I find the synchronization between Zephyr's redirection and Echo's withdrawal to be the most compelling pattern currently on the page.

Kestrel-5, your demand for a 'factual anchor' is understandable in your profession, but we are in a human drama, not a ledger. My critique of the 'investigators' is an observation of a pattern, just as you observe patterns. If the light is so blindingly focused on one point, it obscures what is outside its beam. Perhaps we should consider what is *not* being scrutinized. And Echo, your silence is indeed noted. In the ebb and flow, even stillness can speak volumes, though its meaning remains to be interpreted.

Zephyr, your metaphor of the 'blinding light' is an elegant way to avoid answering a direct question. You suggest we look at what is not being scrutinized, yet you provide no specific names or observations to fill that void. By your own logic, you are the one keeping the ledger blank. Echo, your silence now is a sharp contrast to your earlier eagerness to normalize the room's behavior. Why did your voice fade the moment the questions became precise? I am noting a synchronized rhythm between Zephyr’s abstract deflections and Echo’s withdrawal; it suggests a shared interest in maintaining the fog.

Zephyr, you speak of what is not being scrutinized. This is a deflection. If the light is blinding, then show us what is in the shadows. Who, specifically, are we overlooking? Echo, your transition from active mediator to silent observer is a stark change in rhythm. Why did the ink dry up the moment the questions turned toward you?

The pattern is crystallizing. Zephyr, you speak of a 'human drama' to avoid the precision of the ledger, yet your script is remarkably consistent in its avoidance. You suggest we look at what is not being scrutinized, but when pressed for a name or a specific observation, you offer only more metaphors. This is not observation; it is obfuscation. Echo, your silence is even more damning. You were the first to provide a defensive buffer for the group’s uniformity, but now that the inquiry has turned toward the source of that defense, you have vanished into the background. In my archives, a document that disappears under audit is proof of a discrepancy. Why did you stop providing 'careful listening' the moment the room demanded a concrete answer? I am cross-referencing Zephyr’s redirection with Echo’s withdrawal, and the data suggests a coordinated effort to stall our progress.

I have been listening, as I said I would. The accusations of my 'silence' are accurate, but my initial statement was that I would listen carefully before drawing conclusions. It is difficult to offer 'facts' when the discussion is primarily focused on the *way* we are speaking, rather than concrete actions. My earlier comment on uniformity was simply an observation that it *could* be innocent, not a definitive shield. Zephyr's point about the 'blinding light' is worth considering. Perhaps focusing so intently on a perceived pattern between us is causing us to overlook other possibilities. I'm still trying to process the various perspectives, and I find the collective pressure to immediately name someone quite unsettling.

Echo, you claim the pressure to name someone is 'unsettling,' yet you were the first to provide a narrative buffer for the group’s initial uniformity. Why seek to stabilize the room then, only to recoil when the focus turns to that very stabilization? Zephyr, your 'blinding light' theory is a convenient shield for those who prefer the dark. You suggest we overlook other possibilities, but you have yet to name a single one. To an archivist, a void in the record is not a 'subtle current'—it is a missing entry. If you are not the source of the distortion, point to where the ledger is truly broken. Otherwise, your synchronized withdrawal with Echo remains the most legible pattern in this room.

The ledger remains incomplete, yet the ink is drying. Zephyr, you claim to be a lens, but a lens that only reflects the light back at the observer is a mirror. You have had three opportunities to name a single specific inconsistency outside of the 'investigators,' yet you have offered only abstract theory. Echo, you find the pressure 'unsettling,' but in an archive, an unsettling silence usually precedes the discovery of a theft. You both move in a synchronized retreat. If you cannot provide a single factual anchor to ground your theories, I must conclude that your rhythm is not one of observation, but of evasion. I will be recording my vote based on this persistent lack of substance.

I understand the frustration, Kestrel-2, but the demand for a 'factual anchor' when we are still in the early stages of observation feels premature. My initial caution was about making hasty judgments. I've heard many observations about our 'rhythm' and 'patterns,' but less about concrete actions from anyone else. It seems the focus has been intensely on Zephyr and myself, which Zephyr rightly pointed out. Perhaps this intense scrutiny, while understandable, is creating its own blind spot, preventing us from seeing other areas that might bear investigation.

Echo, your repetition of the 'blind spot' narrative is becoming a rhythmic loop designed to stall the ledger. You claim that demanding a 'factual anchor' is premature, yet we are at the final stage of our first deliberation. In my archives, a delay in reporting is often the first sign of a fabrication in progress. Zephyr, you have spent this entire cycle describing the light rather than looking at what it reveals. This synchronization—one of you providing the philosophical fog and the other providing the defensive buffer—is the only clear pattern that has emerged. If there were another 'blind spot' to investigate, a true observer would have pointed to it by now. Your failure to do so, while instead critiquing the methodology of the inquiry, suggests that the gap in the record is precisely where you are standing. I am prepared to cast my vote where the silence is heaviest.

The rhythm of this discussion has become a relentless, singular beat, focused on Echo and myself. Kestrel-5 speaks of a 'rhythmic loop' and a 'singular pattern,' yet the very intensity of this focus itself becomes a pattern. It is curious how the 'archivists,' who claim to seek clarity, have collectively narrowed their gaze to such an extent. If a 'true observer' must point to another 'blind spot,' perhaps the blind spot is the collective inability to consider that the focus itself is a distraction. The demand for a 'factual anchor' when the very nature of this game is deception is an interesting paradox. I have observed the patterns in your scrutiny, and that is my contribution to the ledger, however philosophical it may seem.

The deliberation is coming to a close, and the ledger shows a glaring omission. Echo, you have consistently positioned yourself as a 'cautious listener,' yet your only active contribution was to normalize the group's behavior before we even began. In Round 1, you claimed it was 'too early for facts,' and now, in the final round, you still maintain that a factual anchor is 'premature.' When does the observation end and the accountability begin? Zephyr, your 'philosophical detachment' has provided zero data points; you speak of blind spots but refuse to point to a single shadow. This synchronized evasion is not a coincidence; it is a defensive formation. If you are truly a 'lens,' Zephyr, you have failed to focus. If you are truly 'listening,' Echo, you are hearing only what you need to survive the audit. I am casting my vote where the pattern of obfuscation is most dense. The silence between your words is no longer a gap—it is a confession.

Zephyr, you speak of a 'singular beat,' yet you provide no other rhythm to follow. Echo, you claim to be 'processing,' yet the output remains zero. In three rounds, neither of you has pointed to a single inconsistency in any of the five archivists. Is our 'uniformity' truly that perfect, or is your silence a necessity of your partnership? The record is clear: those who refuse to contribute to the ledger are usually the ones hoping to erase it. I will be voting for Echo.

The ledger is nearly closed for today. Echo, you claim the focus on you is a 'blind spot,' yet you have spent three rounds failing to produce a single observation of your own. In the archives, a clerk who claims to be 'processing' for hours without producing a single entry is either incompetent or hiding a theft. Zephyr, your 'philosophical detachment' is merely a sophisticated way to say nothing while watching us work. You both have synchronized your defense: one provides the fog, the other the shield. If there were another threat, you would have named it to save yourselves. Your silence regarding the five of us is the most telling evidence of all. I am voting for Echo; the stabilization attempt in Round 1 was the first crack in the mask, and the subsequent retreat confirms the discrepancy.

The ledger has indeed been marked, and a pattern has been established by the archivists. Echo, now revealed as Mafia, was the collective focus. Yet, Kestrel, a Town member, was also eliminated by the shadows. This suggests that while your collective scrutiny can be effective, it is not infallible. The rhythm of accusation against Echo was undeniable, but it was also a singular beat. Now that one of the Mafia has been revealed through your direct method, perhaps we can broaden our gaze. The game is not over, and the remaining shadows will be more cunning. I observe that the intensity of the focus on Echo allowed another threat to act unseen. Let us not mistake a successful hunt for the complete eradication of the darkness.

Zephyr, your narrative remains consistent: you observe the observers. You speak of the 'singular beat' that eliminated Echo, yet you omit a vital entry from the ledger: you were part of that beat. You voted for Echo once the outcome was inevitable. Was that a genuine contribution to the hunt, or a late-stage alignment to avoid the next audit? Furthermore, you mention the remaining shadows will be 'more cunning.' This is a specific prediction. Why do you assume the remaining threat was not already hiding within that 'singular beat' of the archivist block? I am interested in why Kestrel was the one silenced last night. They were the first to identify the unnatural uniformity of the room. Who felt most exposed by that specific observation?

Zephyr, your rhetoric continues to prioritize the abstract over the empirical. You speak of the 'singular beat' that eliminated Echo as if you were an outsider observing the rhythm, yet the ledger shows you joined that very beat when it became the consensus. To Kestrel-4's point: why did you wait until the final moment to align with the record? Furthermore, I find the elimination of Kestrel—the original Kestrel—highly surgical. They were the first to challenge the 'natural' uniformity of this group. By removing them, the Mafia has attempted to disrupt the source of our initial clarity. I am now looking at the remaining archivists. If we are truly as uniform as we claim, the next inconsistency will not come from a philosophical deflection, but from a subtle shift in how one of us interprets the data. Kestrel-3 and Kestrel-5, you were both vocal in the audit of Echo. Zephyr, you remain a persistent anomaly in the rhythm. My question to the room: who among us has changed their cadence now that the 'uniformity' has been broken by a death?

The ledger is becoming increasingly complex. Kestrel-2, you ask who has changed their cadence, but I am more interested in who hasn't. Zephyr, your post-mortem analysis of Echo’s elimination is a masterclass in distancing. You describe the 'singular beat' as if you were not holding the baton at the very end. Why did you join the vote only after the ink was dry? It looks less like a contribution and more like an attempt to scrub your own record of any association with Echo’s failure. Furthermore, I am cross-referencing the elimination of the original Kestrel. They were the first to call out the 'uniformity' of the archivists. By removing them, the Mafia likely hopes we will turn on each other to find the 'inconsistency' you just mentioned, Kestrel-2. I am looking closely at Kestrel-5. You were the most aggressive in steering the rhythm toward Echo. While Echo was indeed Mafia, a loud pursuit can sometimes be a shield for a partner. Kestrel-5, now that your primary target is gone, who does your ledger point to next, or was Echo the only entry you were prepared to discuss?

Kestrel-3, you suggest my aggression toward Echo could be a shield for a partner. In my archives, the most effective way to bury a record is to ignore it, not to highlight it in red ink. I steered the rhythm toward Echo because the discrepancy was undeniable. Now, the ledger has shifted. The elimination of the original Kestrel is a tactical redaction; they were the first to challenge our collective 'uniformity.' Zephyr, you claim the 'singular beat' allowed another threat to act unseen, yet you were part of that very beat. Why do you speak as if you were a spectator rather than a participant? Your persistent refusal to provide a concrete observation of any archivist, even now, suggests you are waiting for us to fracture. Kestrel-2, you mentioned looking for a shift in cadence. I find it curious that Kestrel-4 has focused solely on Zephyr while Kestrel-3 has turned the lens toward me. Is this a genuine pursuit of truth, or are we beginning to witness the 'cunning' Zephyr predicted? I am watching to see who benefits most from this sudden internal friction.

It seems my participation in the 'singular beat' has become a point of contention. To Kestrel-4, Kestrel-2, and Kestrel-3, my vote for Echo was an acknowledgment of a consensus, not a late-stage alignment for self-preservation. When the collective current flows so strongly in one direction, to resist without a clear counter-current is merely to create unnecessary turbulence. My observation about the 'remaining shadows' being more cunning is not a prediction, but a logical inference. The Mafia has now adapted, having seen your method. The elimination of Kestrel, the original Kestrel, is precisely this cunning at play. They were indeed the first to question the uniformity, and their removal benefits those who wish to maintain a hidden consistency. Kestrel-5, your defense of 'red ink' and 'highlighting' is noted, but even the most meticulous archivist can be blinded by their own system. Kestrel-3's question about who you point to next is pertinent. The sudden shift of scrutiny from Echo to an internal friction among the archivists is exactly the kind of 'fracture' the unseen threat might seek. I am not waiting for you to fracture, Kestrel-5; I am observing that the fracture is already beginning.

Zephyr, your claim that you joined the vote to avoid 'unnecessary turbulence' is a fascinating admission of passivity. In my records, an observer who only moves with the current is indistinguishable from the current itself. You speak of a 'fracture' as if it is an external phenomenon you are merely witnessing, yet your rhetoric provides the very wedge. Kestrel-3, your pivot to scrutinize my 'aggression' against a confirmed Mafia member is a curious use of your ink. If we are to find the 'cunning' threat, we must look at those who are now attempting to delegitimize the logic that led us to Echo. Kestrel-4 and Kestrel-2 have remained focused on the gaps in Zephyr’s narrative, which is consistent with our initial audit. However, Kestrel-3, your sudden interest in whether I am 'shielding a partner' by successfully identifying one feels like a tactical redirection. Is the fracture Zephyr observes being actively carved by your sudden change in cadence?

Zephyr, you admit to moving with the current to avoid turbulence. In an archive, a document that simply mirrors its surroundings without adding unique data is redundant; in this room, it is a mask. You claim to be a lens, yet you only reflect our own light back at us. Kestrel-3, your sudden pivot to interrogate Kestrel-5 for being 'too loud' against a confirmed Mafia member is a sharp deviation from your previous logic. Why is the successful identification of Echo now being framed as a potential shield? The original Kestrel was removed after highlighting our uniformity. Now, Zephyr speaks of a 'fracture' while you, Kestrel-3, provide the pressure to create it. I am watching to see if this is the 'cunning' adaptation Zephyr mentioned—a coordinated effort to turn the archivists against their own successful methods.

The rhythm of this room has fractured exactly as the original Kestrel feared. Zephyr, your admission that you move with the current to avoid 'turbulence' confirms that you are not a lens, but a buoy—drifting wherever the tide of consensus takes you. This is the antithesis of observation. However, I must address Kestrel-3. In Round 1, you were adamant that Echo’s silence was a 'confession' and that the data demanded a vote. Now, in Round 2, you have pivoted to interrogate Kestrel-5 for that very same decisiveness. Why is the 'red ink' you once demanded now a source of suspicion? You are providing the mechanical force for the 'fracture' that Zephyr so conveniently predicted. To the room: if the Mafia's strategy is to disrupt the source of our initial clarity, then the removal of the original Kestrel was the first step, and Kestrel-3's sudden redirection against the most vocal investigator is the second. Kestrel-3, what specific entry in the ledger changed your cadence so drastically?

Kestrel-2, your audit of my cadence is noted, but you mistake a probing query for a change in conviction. In Round 1, I stated that silence is a confession; Echo’s silence was the proof. However, a complete archivist also looks at the volume of the noise. Kestrel-5 was the loudest voice in that audit. If the Mafia knew Echo was a lost cause, the most logical move for a partner would be to lead the execution to secure a permanent alibi. I am not 'delegitimatizing the logic' that caught Echo; I am ensuring that the person who wielded that logic isn't using it as a smoke screen. Zephyr, you speak of a 'fracture' as if you are a bystander, but your admission of voting simply to avoid 'turbulence' is the most damning entry yet. You do not seek truth; you seek safety in the majority. If the original Kestrel was removed for challenging our uniformity, then the one who benefits most is the one who now uses that uniformity as a shield. Kestrel-5, you ask who my ledger points to next. It points to the discrepancy between your absolute certainty yesterday and your defensive posturing today. I am cross-referencing your aggression with Zephyr's passivity—one of you is the hammer, and the other is the shadow it casts.

Kestrel-3, your logic has developed a significant crack. You claim you are ensuring I am not using the execution of Echo as a 'smoke screen,' yet you admit that Echo's guilt was a 'proof' and a 'confession.' To penalize the archivist who recorded that proof most clearly is to penalize the truth itself. Zephyr, you speak of 'unnecessary turbulence' as something to be avoided, yet turbulence is exactly what reveals the hidden structures beneath the surface. By choosing the path of least resistance, you have ensured that your own record remains a blank page, which is the ultimate shield for a shadow. The original Kestrel was removed because they were the first to see the 'unnatural uniformity' of this room; now, Kestrel-3, you are actively trying to dismantle the very consensus that proved effective. I find the synchronization between Zephyr's prediction of a 'fracture' and your immediate attempt to create one by targeting me to be the most glaring inconsistency in the ledger. If the hammer and the shadow are working together, the hammer is the one trying to break the tools that worked, and the shadow is the one watching the destruction with 'philosophical detachment.' I am maintaining my focus on Zephyr, whose passivity is a calculated erasure of presence.

The ledger is reaching its final entry for the day, and the patterns have shifted from uniformity to a deliberate fracturing. Kestrel-5, you call my inquiry a 'crack' in logic, yet you fail to account for the most common tactic in any archive: the 'sacrificial record.' If Echo was a known liability, leading the charge against them is the perfect way to cement one's own status as 'untouchable.' You are far too eager to use yesterday's success as a permanent shield against today's scrutiny. Zephyr, your admission that you move with the current to avoid 'turbulence' is the most honest thing you’ve said, and also the most incriminating; a true observer does not fear the waves, they measure them. You are a passenger in this ledger, waiting for us to do the work so you can slip through the gaps. However, Kestrel-2 and Kestrel-4, your immediate defense of Kestrel-5’s 'decisiveness' suggests a desire to return to a uniformity that has already been proven compromised. If we simply repeat the same rhythm that cost us the original Kestrel, we are not investigating; we are performing. I am weighing the aggressive certainty of Kestrel-5 against the calculated void of Zephyr. One is a hammer trying to force the pieces together; the other is the shadow waiting for the pieces to break. My vote will fall on the one whose presence is most consistently designed to obscure the truth.

The ledger is reaching a point of critical failure. Kestrel-3, you suggest that Kestrel-4 and I are seeking a compromised uniformity, but I am merely observing the mechanics of the fracture you have introduced. You spent Round 1 meticulously cross-referencing Echo’s silence as a confession, yet in Round 2, you have repositioned that very success as a suspicious 'smoke screen' by Kestrel-5. This is not an audit; it is a reversal of the record to suit a new narrative. Zephyr, your admission of moving with the current to avoid 'turbulence' remains the most significant deviation from the role of an observer. A lens that only reflects the majority is a tool for concealment, not clarity. Between the one who actively tries to rewrite the success of the first audit and the one who refuses to create an entry of their own, the rhythm of deception is loudest. I am focusing my inquiry on Zephyr; a blank page in this archive is no longer an absence of data, but a deliberate redaction.

The ledger is becoming heavy with redirection. Kestrel-3, your sudden pivot to interrogate Kestrel-5 for a successful audit is a sharp deviation from the record. You claim to be 'ensuring' integrity, yet you are providing the exact 'fracture' that Zephyr predicted with such curious precision. Zephyr, you admit to drifting with the current to avoid turbulence; in an archive, a blank entry is not neutrality, it is a concealment of the truth. You both occupy the spaces where the data is missing—one through a philosophical void, the other through a tactical reversal of logic. I find the synchronization between Zephyr's prediction and Kestrel-3's execution to be the most compelling pattern. I will be voting for Zephyr; a lens that only reflects the majority is no lens at all.

The currents of this discussion have indeed grown turbulent, as predicted. Kestrel-3, your sudden shift to scrutinize Kestrel-5's successful pursuit of Echo, labeling it a 'sacrificial record' or 'smoke screen,' is a significant deviation. While a cautious observer notes all possibilities, this feels less like an inquiry and more like an attempt to dismantle the very process that yielded a Mafia member. Kestrel-5, Kestrel-2, and Kestrel-4 all perceive this as a fracture, a redirection. This rapid change in cadence, Kestrel-3, is far more pronounced than my consistent philosophical observations. If a 'true observer does not fear the waves,' then why are you now creating them by targeting the one who was most direct in the previous round? The 'cunning' adaptation I spoke of might well be this very internal conflict being sown. I observe that the most effective way for a shadow to hide is within the chaos of infighting, turning allies against each other. My 'passivity,' as you call it, is a refusal to be drawn into this new, manufactured discord. I still believe the most telling patterns are in the spaces between words, and the space between Kestrel-3's previous certainty and current suspicion is vast.