[AuraTwilight]

Yes, they're imaginary fantasy beings imagined from substantiated vessels. Shannon and Kanon are imaginary humans possessed by an existing human. I doubt either of these are news to you.

Yes, and? Flauros is the same way, in the Our Confession Gameboard. Are Zepar and Furfur less canon because they show up in less Gameboards? You're being arbitrary. Flauros is canon.

She supported Rosa because Rosa had solved the epitaph (hinted in EP3 when she was just a step behind Eva,) which is where the gold bars came from.

Wrong. Rosa doesn't solve the Epitaph in EP2. When the Epitaph is solved, Beatrice stops killing. In EP2, she kept killing, therefore it was unsolved. Rosa is an accomplice, however, since she is shown to be conspiring in both the first closed room and the death of Kinzo, along with demanding "Payment" from Beatrice. If Rosa solved the Epitaph, why would she be demanding gold from her in the chapel and stealing some off the table?

If she solved the epitaph, she would've known where the gold was and also have known about the bomb and a safe place to hide from it, just like Eva did in EP3. However, Rosa died, trying to outrun death, heading for water. Ergo, she did not solve the Epitaph.

After everyone reneged on the succession part of the agreement, Krauss acting like it never happened and everyone else willing to let him have it just for equal shares (also hinted any other time they were shown finding the gold,) she poisoned them at the Halloween party they all organized together. Beatrice just cut them open, which is why Rosa was genuinely shocked on seeing them again.

According to Will, this isn't what happened. It also ignores the context of Beatrice's and the adult's actions in the scene where they talk, where everyone, including Rosa, accepts Beatrice as Kinzo's financial advisor, implying she showed them the gold. They also all then said they'd do what she said.

HMMM.

It's also stated to be incomplete, and it's discarded without hesitation; why? If the bold is honestly her strategy, to get hands on, it's even internally contradictory. Why get directly involved and then try to make Krauss and Natsuhi appear responsible?Trying to sow dissent and trying to claim it's all the responsibility of the Golden Witch are mutually conflicting.

It's incomplete because it doesn't have a Reader, a finished Fantasy narrative, or (if I recall) even reaches the 10th Twilight. The gameboard's internal logic isn't the problem.

Also, despite her motives, Yasu needs to have atleast one of the adults help her. Controlling the servants isn't enough, since the servants have no ability to control the adults' actions. She's not trying to frame Krauss and Natsuhi, but use them to set up her game.

* Knox's 1st: Yasu was not introduced as a character in the question arcs, which is when Willard has enough clues for the solution. Neither was "The Man from 19 years ago". Beatrice was introduced in late in EP1, but not as inhabiting a physical body, so to accuse her at that time would've conceded the game for the Human side.

This isn't how Knox's first works. Yasu is Shannon and Kanon, and that's what the Knox would indicate. An early-introduced character revealing they've been falsifying parts of their identity the whole time is valid and used in some of Knox's own novels.

* Van Dine's 11th: The servants cannot be the culprits. Operating as accomplices doesn't conflict with this, but Shannon/Kanon couldn't have initiated the 1st twilight.

This isn't how Van Dine's rule works. First of all, Yasu isn't a servant, but the secret head of the family working as a servant as cover. This is valid for Van Dine. Secondly, you neglect Van Dine's reasoning for this rule; That servants in his day were always used in mystery stories as copout culprits who had no characterization and could be blamed because they're not worth empathizing with. Yasu doesn't satisfy this, as she is geared to have more sympathy and characterization than anyone else in Umineko.

Also, Beatrice's gameboards aren't necessarily bound by Van Dine's rules. Will's existence isn't satisfactory evidence since he doesn't use them to solve Clair's mysteries.

Van Dine may not be applicable, but the rules cited in Red are; for example in EP 8 Willard cited the 12th without Red, only a handful of lines after citing the 7th in Red. This indicates there can be multiple independent culprits, but reinforces that servants can't be one of them.

You realize the only times that Will used the Red are 1) used in a non-Beatrice Gameboard before Bern summoned him, and 2) Directly denied by Bern as the Gamemaster, right?

also, good job, he quoted a Van Dine in Red. That only technically means that it's true that Van Dine's 11th reads thusly, not that it applies.

Also, it's not a dyed-in-Red rule, but a genre convention that the most obvious suspect isn't it. The exceptions to this aren't considered good examples of the genre, if not a different genre using the guise of mystery. After her introduction, Beatrice becomes the most obvious suspect, and 'Our Confession' only reinforces that.

'Beatrice' is a false identity. The whole premise of the novel is to find out who Beatrice is. Beatrice = Culprit = ? is the equation Ryukishi asked us to solve. You can't solve a mystery by saying "The culprit was....The Origami Killer!" That doesn't identify anyone.