🗂️ What Is the Thinking Board?

The Thinking Board is your cork board investigation interface — a visual space where you pin clue cards and draw string connections between them to reconstruct the logic of the murder. It is the game's primary interface for detective work, and it is entirely player-driven. The game will not tell you which clues to connect or whether your current connections are correct until you formally attempt an accusation.

Unlike many mystery games that present evidence passively in a log, the Thinking Board requires active reasoning from you. An unconnected clue on the board is inert. Only when it is linked to at least one other clue in a logically coherent chain does it contribute to your accusation. The board is designed around the literary tradition of the detective as active reasoner — not passive witness.

The board also persists across all loops, growing more populated and connected with every run. Treat it as your primary working document throughout the investigation. Open it at the start of every loop, review what you know, identify what is missing, and plan your loop around filling those gaps.

🟡 All Node Types Explained

{[ { color:"#c9a227", icon:"📄", title:"Evidence Node", subtitle:"Physical or Documentary Clue", desc:"Represents a tangible piece of evidence: an object you found, a document you read, a physical observation you made. These are the most reliable node type — they are not subject to NPC deception.", examples:["A torn letter found in Brás Cubas's study", "Financial records showing a disputed inheritance", "A footprint near the scene at a specific time"], connects:"Testimony nodes (to confirm or contradict), other Evidence nodes (to establish a sequence of events)" }, { color:"#5591c7", icon:"💬", title:"Testimony Node", subtitle:"Character Statement", desc:"Represents something a character told you. Testimonies are inherently less reliable than evidence — all 14 suspects have reasons to lie or conceal. Always cross-reference testimonies with evidence nodes.", examples:["Character A claims they were at the café at noon", "Character B states they never met the victim", "A character admits to a grudge but denies acting on it"], connects:"Evidence nodes (to be confirmed or contradicted), other Testimony nodes (to identify contradictions)" }, { color:"#7a9e5a", icon:"🔍", title:"Deduction Node", subtitle:"Your Inference", desc:"A conclusion you draw by combining two or more other nodes. Deduction nodes are generated by you — the game does not create them automatically. They represent your explicit reasoning step.", examples:["Character A's alibi is false (from cross-referencing two contradicting testimonies)", "Victim was poisoned before the stated time of death (from evidence + testimony conflict)"], connects:"Any node type — deductions serve as logical bridges between evidence chains" }, { color:"#c0392b", icon:"⚖️", title:"Accusation Node", subtitle:"Your Formal Charge", desc:"The terminal node. Created automatically when you attempt a formal accusation. To be accepted, it must be connected to nodes representing motive, means, and opportunity — all anchored to physical evidence or corroborated testimony.", examples:["[Suspect Name] murdered Brás Cubas because [motive], using [means], at [time/location] (opportunity)"], connects:"Must connect to: one motive chain, one means chain, one opportunity chain — each ultimately anchored to Evidence nodes" }, ].map((node) => (

{node.icon}

{node.title} {node.subtitle}

{node.desc}

Examples:

{ex}

Connects to:

{node.connects}

))}

➕ How Clues Are Added to the Board

Evidence and Testimony nodes are added automatically when you interact with an object or complete a relevant conversation. You do not need to manually add them. When a new node is added, the game briefly highlights the board icon in the interface. Make a habit of opening the board after every significant interaction to see what was added.

Deduction nodes must be created by you. These are generated through a specific board action: selecting two connected nodes and choosing "Deduce" from the interaction menu. The game will validate that the two nodes are logically compatible before allowing the deduction. If the deduction is rejected, it means the game's logic model doesn't support the inference — not necessarily that you're wrong, but that you lack the supporting evidence to make it stick formally.

⚠️

Important: Clues that are in your memory but not yet on the board are not usable in an accusation chain. If you spoke to a character in a previous loop but the conversation didn't generate a Testimony node, you need to have that conversation again this loop to put it on the board.

🔗 Drawing Connections — The Logic Rules

Connections are drawn by selecting a source node, then a target node, and choosing "Connect." Not all connections are valid — the game enforces a logic model. Understanding the rules prevents wasted time drawing invalid connections.

Valid Connection Types

{[ ["Evidence","Testimony","✅","Evidence confirms or contradicts testimony"], ["Evidence","Evidence","✅","Both relate to the same time window, person, or location"], ["Testimony","Testimony","✅","Accounts cover the same event — creates contradiction or corroboration"], ["Evidence","Deduction","✅","Evidence is one of the two sources of the deduction"], ["Testimony","Deduction","✅","Testimony is one of the two sources of the deduction"], ["Deduction","Deduction","✅","Second-order reasoning — use sparingly"], ["Deduction","Accusation","✅","Deduction forms one branch of accusation chain"], ["Evidence","Accusation","✅","Evidence directly supports accusation element"], ["Testimony","Accusation","⚠️","Only if corroborated by at least one Evidence node"], ["Accusation","Any","❌","Accusation is always the terminal node"], ].map(([f,t,v,c]) => ( ))}

From Node	To Node	Valid?	Condition
{f}	{t}	{v}	{c}

⚖️ Building a Valid Accusation

When you attempt a formal accusation, the game evaluates whether your Accusation node is supported by three complete chains. All three are required — a missing chain results in an immediate loop reset with no partial credit.

The Three Required Chains

{[ { icon:"🎯", color:"#c9a227", label:"Motive Chain", desc:"A sequence of connected nodes demonstrating why your accused suspect would want Brás Cubas dead. Must include at least one Evidence node (a document, financial record, or corroborated testimony about their relationship with the victim).", minimum:"2 nodes minimum — 1 Evidence, 1 Testimony or Deduction" }, { icon:"🔪", color:"#c0392b", label:"Means Chain", desc:"A sequence demonstrating how the murder was committed and that your suspect had access to the method. Physical evidence of the murder method must be present — pure testimony about means is insufficient.", minimum:"2 nodes minimum — must include at least 1 physical Evidence node" }, { icon:"🕐", color:"#5591c7", label:"Opportunity Chain", desc:"A sequence demonstrating your suspect was at the right place at the right time to commit the murder, and that no valid alibi exists. The alibi contradiction is especially important — the game requires you to formally invalidate any alibi the suspect presents.", minimum:"3 nodes minimum — location evidence + time evidence + alibi contradiction" }, ].map((chain) => (

{chain.icon} {chain.label}

{chain.desc}

Minimum: {chain.minimum}

))}

💡

The alibi check is the most commonly missed requirement. Even if your Motive and Means chains are complete, the Opportunity chain fails if you haven't placed a node on the board that explicitly contradicts your suspect's alibi. Go back and find that contradiction before attempting your accusation.

❌ 6 Common Board Mistakes

{[ { icon:"🔴", title:"Attempting Accusation with Uncorroborated Testimony", body:"Testimony-only chains are rejected. Every testimony used in an accusation chain must be connected to at least one piece of physical evidence that supports it. If you're relying on a character's word alone, find the document or object that confirms it." }, { icon:"🔴", title:"Missing the Alibi Contradiction Node", body:"The Opportunity chain requires an explicit alibi-busting node — not just a time/location node. You must have a piece of evidence that directly contradicts what your suspect said about their whereabouts." }, { icon:"🟡", title:"Orphan Nodes with No Connections", body:"Nodes that are on the board but connected to nothing do not contribute to any accusation chain. Review the board regularly and connect every new node before moving on. An isolated clue is useless at accusation time." }, { icon:"🟡", title:"Over-Relying on Deduction Nodes", body:"Deduction nodes are bridging tools, not substitutes for evidence. A chain built primarily on deductions — with only one or two evidence anchors at the base — is fragile and often rejected. Ground every chain in physical evidence." }, { icon:"🟢", title:"Not Updating the Board Mid-Loop", body:"Opening the board only at the end of a loop to check accusation readiness is too late. Open it after every major discovery to draw fresh connections while the context is clear. Connections made immediately after discovery are more accurate than connections reconstructed from memory later." }, { icon:"🟢", title:"Connecting Unrelated Nodes to 'Complete' a Chain", body:"Forcing connections between nodes that don't logically relate — just to fill out a chain — results in rejection at accusation time. The game checks logical coherence, not just the presence of connections. If a chain feels forced, the missing piece is still out in the world." }, ].map((mistake) => (

{mistake.title}

{mistake.body}

))}

🧠 Board Strategy Per Loop Phase

Early Loops (1–3): Population Phase

Your goal is to get as many nodes onto the board as possible, not to connect them yet. Pursue every interaction, exhaust every available dialogue topic, and examine every accessible object. Don't spend time trying to draw connections between incomplete nodes — the picture is not yet clear enough.

At the end of each early loop, do one board pass: connect any nodes that clearly relate to the same person, location, or event. Mark testimony nodes that you suspect are false with a mental note to find contradicting evidence.

Mid Loops (4–7): Connection Phase

By this point, your board should be populated enough to see gaps. Each mid-game loop should be planned around filling a specific missing piece in one of your three accusation chains. Open the board at the start of the loop, identify the weakest chain, and make filling that gap the primary objective.

Pay particular attention to the alibi contradiction requirement in the Opportunity chain — this is the most commonly incomplete element in mid-game boards. If you haven't definitively placed a suspect at the crime location at the crime time, that is your loop priority.

Late Loops (8+): Accusation Phase

When all three chains have at least their minimum node requirements and every node is connected, attempt a test accusation. If it's rejected, the game will indicate which chain is deficient. Use this information to plan one final targeted loop to collect the missing element.

Do not attempt multiple accusations in the same loop — the first rejection ends the loop. Only attempt an accusation when your board review suggests all three chains are complete.

🏆

True ending note: The true ending requires a specific accusation chain that includes evidence from a location most players miss in early loops. See our Endings Guide for the complete true ending requirements without spoiling the core mystery.

❓ Thinking Board FAQ

{[ { q:"How do I know when my accusation chain is complete?", a:"The game does not provide a visual 'complete' indicator for chains — you must judge readiness yourself. A reliable self-check: trace from the Accusation node backwards through each of the three chains. Every chain should end at an Evidence node, with no unconnected testimony along the way. If you can trace a clean path from Accusation to physical evidence for all three chains, you're ready." }, { q:"Can I remove nodes or connections from the board?", a:"Yes. Both nodes and connections can be removed from the board at any time. This is useful when you discover that a testimony was false and want to restructure a chain. However, removing a node that another node depends on will also remove those dependent connections — review carefully before deleting." }, { q:"My deduction was rejected — what does that mean?", a:"A rejected deduction means the game's logic model doesn't accept the inference you're trying to make from the current evidence. This usually means you're missing a supporting Evidence node. The deduction may be correct as a real-world inference, but the game requires a formal evidence anchor for every deduction in the chain." }, { q:"Do testimony nodes from different loops work together?", a:"Yes. All testimony nodes on the board are treated as current regardless of which loop they were gathered in. The board's time-persistence means you can cross-reference a Loop 2 testimony with a Loop 6 evidence node freely." }, { q:"What happens to the board if I get the wrong ending?", a:"The board persists after any ending. If you receive a wrong ending (incomplete chain or wrong suspect), your board is intact for the next loop with all its connections. The wrong accusation itself may provide clues about what you're missing." }, { q:"Is the Thinking Board the only way to make an accusation?", a:"Yes. In The Posthumous Investigation, there is no dialogue-based accusation path. All formal accusations must go through the Thinking Board with a complete three-chain structure. This is by design — the game requires you to demonstrate logical reasoning, not just identify a suspect." }, ].map(item => (

{item.q}

{item.a}

))}