That does not follow. It’s a post-hoc rationalization to attempt to explain away something that later evidence already shows. We cannot deduce this as you’ve formulated it from the red alone.
Moreover, your analysis of how a role works is incomplete. Replace “dead” for “out,” for example, if we’re using game terms. If you get tagged in tag or shot in cops and robbers you’re not really “dead” or “in jail” or what have you. There is also no reason for us to conclude that being a “nameless body” is invalid or impossible if the structure of the descriptions refer to a script or roleplaying layer. When Caesar is stabbed his actor can still move the scenery around between scenes; he has lost only his role on the open stage.
The sole difference between Kyrie and Kanon is that when Shannon dies Kanon still has a role he can play on the open stage. Kyrie must become a nameless background actor if she is still alive, or else excuse herself from the game entirely. Your analysis does not actually exclude this possibility as a “c) other interpretations of that line.” My interpretation is that in at least some cases death may refer to being eliminated from the “game,” and biological death need not be the sole explanation.
The Kanon thing actually helps us reach this hypothesis, rather than steering us away from it. It is possible to leave the game through death and remain in it (Legend). It is possible to leave the game through death and come back to it (Turn, and probably not just for Kanon). It is possible to give up all your known “roles” and continue existing as an unseen actor (Banquet).
Your fundamental error is assuming the dismissal is casual rather than reasoned; upon full examination of the evidence and the way red is utilized, its dismissal is entirely rational. We know that red isn’t a tool to assist reasoning, because it is used to lead the player down unproductive avenues and deflect them from the correct ones unless they think properly about what the statements may be saying. On a meta-textual level they are of some help to us as readers, but also a hindrance, but this isn’t really relevant to my point; my point is the things they hinder are not as tight as people might believe.
Irrelevant. No one is trying to dispute what “both” means or whether “both” refers to those people in the context (it’s possible that it refers to some random other people, yes, but it’s not textually supported the same way death-isn’t-dead is). I get what you’re driving at but you’re mistaken as to the point of the ambiguity. The statement may be read as:
“The setup for this mystery is that these two individuals were murdered by a third party; it does not account for the possibility of any sort of mutual killing.”
This gives us a multi-layered interpretation (which, by the way, is supported by Our Confession), which can be parsed as follows:
- The “Witch’s Narrative” in which an impossible closed room has been magicked into existence and two people are dead despite not killing each other, leading to the seeming conclusion that they were killed by no human being.
- The “Mystery Narrative” in which we are presented with the puzzle of two corpses in a closed room and must determine whether it is possible to have accomplished this by human means.
- The “Root Narrative” in which it is entirely possible that the higher-level scenes were deliberately constructed not by actual criminal acts, but by willing participation of Eva and Hideyoshi to play the role of victims in those higher-order narratives.
The “Witch’s Narrative” is constructed by the implications made by the witch in describing the scenes and the intimations of what the context they wish for people to reach, as when Beatrice proclaims her actions are done by magic.
The “Mystery Narrative” is constructed by the puzzle presented by the outline of the scenario and the facts taken as given, embodied in a literal reading of the red text.
The “Root Narrative” is not necessarily beholden to either set of facts, so long as it is still true for some expression of the red presented and supported by the text. There is more than enough strange behavior going on in Legend to support a much wider conspiracy than one culprit and a handful of accomplices. Practically everyone is suspicious and there’s probably good reason for that. The “Root Narrative” may contain actual murders, but I would posit this only occurs when something goes wrong with the plan. By all indications, everything works out exactly the way it should in Legend, and given what we know of Beatrice’s motives from Virgilia in End it seems far more likely that “everything working out” means not killing people. After all, she has the magic to kill and revive endlessly, and the only way to do that “for real” is not to kill in the first place.
Again, I would advise against trying to defeat the notion with this particular approach.