No, actually, it’s not the same.
I’m all for looking at things from different perspectives, but the thing is, you’re looking at things from a different perspective, then asking questions that never had a reason to be asked under the original perspective.
In fact, you’re bringing up questions to issues you yourself are declaring issues to begin with, when they’re simply not. You’re also demanding proof for things that you yourself are declaring surely must have happened. And even so, people are giving you answers, you’re just declaring them insufficient because of a standard you yourself have set.
You’re declaring Erika being a detective means she was infallable and that her making a mistake can’t be and that her being decieved must be 100% explained. It doesn’t. And you’ve already been given more than enough sufficient reasons as to why and how she simply missed a fact. Hell, even the manga itself offers an explanation as to the reasons for her mistake - she simply thought the other servant was in another room.
“Well, now that we’re all gathered here” only becomes an issue and some sort of mystery if you’re 100% dead-set that Erika had counted all heads and indeed confirmed that all of the people she interacted with were 100% there no doubt, instead of just… using a figure of speech. She wanted to corner Natsuhi. The people she wanted to corner Natsuhi in front of and whose testimonies she needed were there. It’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she said what she said. There’s no solid contradiction, and it’s not solid proof against anything.
Lambda’s off-hand remarks and tauntings only become more once you twist them to mean more than they actually are - her implying that some of the previous theories clearly means her gameboard has no “nonsense” (and in the end, you’re the one who ended up writing off the ShKanon explanation as nonsense in the first place).
The meaning of the meta narration, the reds and their relationship with Erika’s actions and the reasons behind them only become intertwined with each other only if you tip the scale and demand they be somehow connected or tie into each other more than they actually are.
This discussion isn’t contributing anything because I’m not sure what we’re supposed to tell you. You’re asking these questions as a sort of way to bring ShKanon into question, I guess? Well, by all means - more power to you. But you’re not offering any sort of reasonable alternatives or even getting to your point. Is there a conclusive fact not fitting in with the solution? If there is, you’re not showing it, because your questions are being answered. And even then, you’re merely pointing out minor inconsistencies under rules which you yourself have, again, decided are rules for the narrative. When, again, there’s nothing saying there are.
Obviously, there’s no way to tell exactly what R7 meant by every statement he made, but my conclusion and the conclusion of a lot of other people is entirely logical given how the people who played the game reacted.
You’ve yet to provide any sort of counterargument or conclusive evidence. Tiny bits of narrative don’t actually MEAN anything if they’re not offering any sort of new insight when placed together.
And I’m sorry if I sound agitated in this post but this discussion isn’t going anywhere right now - especially since you’ve ignored the actual points I’ve made in my previous post.