[chronotrig]

Well, let me put it this way then. None of the questions you have raised puts up a brick wall to my theory. Most of them I have answered explicitly in the past (and some, like "How does knowing any of this solve any problem other than the very problem it invented to justify itself?", are patently ridiculous. If the theory didn't explain anything, why would I have thought of it in the first place?). As for the remaining ones, I have ideas for all of them, each one supported by at least some evidence. I can go over them, but it'll take time (obviously).

Also, you call it Ryuukishi's failure to not provide a completely provable backstory. No, that's ridiculous. If you'd actually read a fair share of detective novels, you'd know that nearly all of them have many backstory elements that can be only guessed at, not proven. And if you're going to call Agatha Christie a failure, then it's no surprise that you'd consider Ryuukishi one no matter how well he does it. The standard you set is higher than Christie's novels. You should be aware of that.