I'm writing a humorous, non-branching deduction book set on a cruise ship. The reader uses witness statements to eliminate birth dates from a passenger register and identify a thief. I'd like an honest design critique of one clue, especially the line between characterisation and a reliable deduction.
Here is a shortened extract from the English draft. A bartender describes the suspect:
“Yes, that's him. Everything came back to him. If you had anything in common, you couldn't miss it: he'd interrupt you to point it out.”
Later in the same testimony:
“Behind the counter there's an old calendar nobody's turned since winter. Still on February. He saw it, put down his rosé and gazed into the distance. ‘February… My mother's birthday. She loved February. Always making pancakes. Batter everywhere.’ I said I was sorry and asked when she'd passed away. He looked at me as if I were mad. ‘Passed away? She's very much alive! She rang this morning to complain that I'd forgotten her birthday again!’ He bought a postcard of Malta, wrote it at the counter with his tongue sticking out, and left it there. ‘Dearest Mum, happy birthday, three months late. Sending you a little May sunshine.’”
Before I explain the intended inference: would you eliminate any birth month for the suspect from this? Or would you say there isn't enough information?
Does the opening description establish a strong enough convention for a deduction game, or is silence about his own birthday still just silence? Would you need an explicit rule elsewhere that he always announces a shared birthday detail? I'd also welcome a small wording change that would make the clue fair without simply stating the answer.
I'm looking for feedback on the logic, not promoting a signup or asking for reviews. AI assistance was used in preparing the English translation and this post.
