Oh that's easy. Someone needs to review and approve edits and commands.

Agentic systems being deployed and adding more work in places: Slack messages now being picked up by workflows and AI integrations that automatically create messages, tickets, 'action items'; alerts triggering additional agentic investigation adding noise instead of reducing it (If you couldn't figure out actionable alerts before I'm not sure how an agentic system is going to help with that problem).

The removal or avoidance of individual accountability or ownership in many places: developer contributions that aren't understood by the person submitting them; loss of ownership and accountibility in work ("I asked Claude to...", "I worked with Claude to...", "Claude decided to...", "I don't know, Claude did it..."); destruction of trust between colleagues.

[1] https://hbr.org/2025/09/ai-generated-workslop-is-destroying-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYU6M8B1xxw

  ISBN = 9780199226559

I guess the brilliant hacking was the bit you don’t see getting access to the super secure database in the first place?

Yeah that's a good point, and perhaps explains why C was added in the first place.

I was going to say that B also shows the literal protagonist not really understanding it either, however now I think about it that reading doesn't track because as a player you've only been able to see one point of view at each branch along the way, so the other experiences are still happening in the background, just not observed by you.

> C is not the salvation we may think

I agree, and in fact the way C is presented in that moment (and maybe described throughout, it's been a while since I played through the game) also implies a 'nice' closure, or a victory that, like you say, doesn't really exist, on top of taking player's minds away from B.

I guess B is the more obvious existential horror, C is one you have to question a bit before it starts to feel wrong.

Specifically (and no spoilers, but I will be talking structure), you see parts A -> B -> C.

I believe that part C makes the sequence of A -> B much less effective, by essentially removing a lot of the tension caused by seeing A, believing what it shows, and then immediately cutting to the reality of B.

C only really takes away some of that tension, and I feel like it was added because of concerns about how a simple A -> B -> fade to black, would leave players feeling. Arguably it's the truest representation of part of the game's message, but to me feels like a bit like it's shying away from really making you face the specific truth highlighted well by B.

Alternatively, keeping all the elements but playing them as A -> C -> B, would keep the message intended by seeing A -> B, and make it gentler for the player to receive, but ultimately remove the powerful effect of the buildup from A leading immediately to the reveal of B.

Dropping C entirely would lose the confirmation of 'Seeing both sides', however I believe A -> B is a more powerful vision, and players can come to question whether C even exists by themselves.

  yes no > /dev/null