The Detective’s DeskQuinn Elm
Proposed deduction
“The remaining request could be mine.”
MEDIUM · CASE FILE
Two registers, one visitor
Medium · SILVER LEAF LIBRARY
An unsigned request came from a visitor who used both specialist rooms that day. One visitor’s request has already been accounted for and must be excluded. Also reconstruct the review register: it records who examined which source, independently of whether their later proposed answer is correct. Review slots describe order, not travel or clock times.
Read the case file below, or open the interactive desk to examine records, keep notes and submit your reasoning. These are the case materials, without the solution.
Your assignment
Who can have written the remaining request?
- The analytical records answer the analytical question; worksheet records establish the review reconstruction. Candidate proposals and supplementary recollections are claims to test.
- There are 3 ordered events. Use each listed person and item once in its column. “A immediately before B” means A is in the row directly above B, with no row between them.
- 4 verified records support the complete submission. Keep the separate context note out of the proof.
- No outside facts or unstated exceptions are required. The complete board and report are assessed together.
People and accounts
Risa Grove
Proposed deduction
“The remaining request could be mine.”
Soren West
Proposed deduction
“The remaining request could be mine.”
Tali Cole
Proposed deduction
“The remaining request could be mine.”
Case records
Read each record on its own terms. A claim made by a person is different from a fact established by an independent record.
LINKED RECORD
Receipt reconciliation
Risa’s request is signed and filed separately. The unsigned request belongs to a different visitor. No visitor submitted more than one request.
This excludes Risa from the remaining candidates.
CONTEXT NOTE
Reading-room notice
The main reading room closes at 18:00.
No claim links the unsigned request to closing time.
PRIMARY RECORD
Room registers
Map Room visitors: Quinn, Risa, Soren. Binding Room visitors: Quinn, Risa, Tali. The relevant writer visited both rooms.
This narrows the writer to the intersection of the registers.
RECONSTRUCTION RECORD
Review register
This is the same investigation’s document review record. There are 3 ordered events, labelled Review 1, Review 2, Review 3. Each listed person and item occurs exactly once. These slots describe record order, not times from the analytical problem.
- The event reviewed by Soren West occupies slot 1 (Review 1).
- The event reviewed by Soren West occurs immediately before the event involving “Room registers” (consecutive rows, with no event between them).
Use each column’s choices exactly once. Verified relationships govern the board; proposed answers and later recollections do not override them.
RECONSTRUCTION RECORD
Review cross-check
The relationships below were verified independently. “A immediately before B” means A is in the row directly above B, with no row between them. Keep relationships from all worksheet sources together.
- The event involving “Reading-room notice” occupies slot 1 (Review 1).
- The event reviewed by Tali Cole occurs earlier than the event reviewed by Quinn Elm, without claiming they are consecutive.
Use each column’s choices exactly once. Verified relationships govern the board; proposed answers and later recollections do not override them.
Questions to resolve
Reconstruct the file or item order through the verified register.
When was the primary analytical record reviewed?
Use the interactive case desk to select your finding and cite the records that support it. The answer is checked there, and your progress stays in your browser.
Build your finding
Compare the records with each account. Work out what the evidence establishes, then separate that finding from anything it does not prove.