This brings us to our first interlude. We pause at the end of any scene in which we've found at least one clue and consider how that clue (or those clues) sheds light on our investigation. We do that by considering our Story Questions (the questions which, if answered, will mean our mystery is solved).

We don't have any Story Questions yet, so we can use this as a chance to think about what our mystery is.

I'm leaning toward two Story Questions right now, but we can add and change them as we go. We aren't locked into them at all, and we don't even have to commit to answering them all, if we decide we don't need to know the answer to one or more of them, after all.

The questions I'm thinking about right now:

• Who was the note's intended recipient?
• Who sent the note?

Looking at our clues so far:

• 1.1: The note was written on a small scroll of high-quality vellum.
• 1.2: The note's language is formal, legal, with uncommon vocabulary, hard for most villagers to understand.
• 1.3: Chief believes that the only folks in town likely to understand the note are the Nandas, a large, well-off (but recently struggling) family in the center of town.

And, in fact, it probably makes sense to treat the contents of the note itself as a clue. We'll retcon that as clue 1.0. It should have affected the strain and such, but mistakes happen. No big deal.

• 1.0: The note instructed the recipient to begin subtly sowing distrust in the village.

So, four clues. We can't leave the interlude until all four clues have been applied to some sort of answer (a "working hypothesis") to one or more of our Story Questions.

We do this by thinking about what each clue might mean in the context of the questions. Let's start with the first one: "Who was the note's intended recipient?"

• The first clue ("fine vellum") doesn't seem to tell us much about the recipient.
• The second clue ("formal, legal vocabulary") suggests that whoever was supposed to receive it must have been well-educated, since they needed to be able to understand it. That becomes our first deduction for that question. We note the clue (1.2) and our deduction ("note requires someone well-educated").
• The third clue (introducing the Nandas as suspects) is also relevant to this question. Our deduction from that clue is just a repetition of the relevant bit of the clue: "the Nandas are well-educated."
• The other first clue (1.0, about the clue's contents), doesn't really suggest anything here, so we skip it as well.

Besides deductions, a working hypothesis may also have hunches. These are things you think might be true, maybe based on your deductions, and maybe not. If a working hypothesis ever has zero hunches, it means you think your deductions paint a whole picture of the answer. This is certainly not the case here! We don't have nearly enough information yet, so we add a hunch.

• Who was the note's intended recipient? One or more of the Nandas.

We've accounted for clues 1.2 and 1.3, but we still need to account for clues 1.0 and 1.1. What is our second question again? Oh, right: "Who sent the note?"

Well, clue 1.0 (instructing the recipient to sow mistrust in the village) doesn't seem to apply here, either. If anything, clue 1.0 seems to suggest motive. Let's add a third question, to give clue 1.0 a place to live:

• What does the note's author want?

Clue 1.0 can now be turned into a deduction for this new question's working hypothesis: "the author wants the villagers to mistrust one another." And while that seems like it answers the question completely, if we were to try and close this question with just that one deduction, we'd almost certainly fail. There are nuances, still. Let's add a hunch that addresses a deeper "why". In fact, let's add a few, basically brainstorming about the author's motivations.

• Hunch: The author wants to weaken the town from within.
• Hunch: The author wants to make the warlord's rule seem more attractive.
• Hunch: The author wants to make the town easier to conquer.

Now, one more clue: 1.1 (high-quality vellum). This one, I think, can apply to the Story Question, "Who sent the note?" Let's add a deduction to that working hypothesis:

• 1.1: The note's author is well-to-do (because high-quality vellum is not cheap or easy to find).

We can also add a deduction based on clue 1.2:

• 1.2: The note's author is well-educated (due to the note's vocabulary, and command of language).

We finish with a hunch, attempting to answer the Story Question, "Who sent the note?" 

• Hunch: One of the warlord's clerks, at the warlord's command.

Now, all four of the clues have been used to make at least one deduction, and none of our questions are ready to be formally answered (because each has least one hunch). We're okay to move on from the interlude, and start the next scene!