Hello everyone.

First, the minor updates. All minor updates are for case 5.

-In case 5: a typo has been fixed. "There's some legal issues to settled since he signed the paperwork and everything." has been updated to "There's some legal issues to settle since he signed the paperwork and everything."

-In case 5: The evidence for Ballistics Report has been updated from "Both bullets fired from the murder weapon traveled in a straight line and were close to their respective entry points." to "Both bullets fired from the murder weapon entered the body perpendicularly and were close to their respective entry points." This update should make the evidence slightly more clear. If anyone has any issues with the word choice with this evidence or any other evidence, please let the Paper Cat Games team know.

-New dialogue was added to case 5 to address the evidence above being adjusted.

-At the end of case 5: A couple more lines of text have been added to Lowell to flesh out his motive.

-At one point in case 5, Sophie said "the forensics" instead of "the forensics team". This has been fixed.

-In case 5: If you present The President's Office Phone to Joy during the first investigation phase, Sophie explains why it's better to save that evidence.

Now, the major change. This is a story related issue some players have had. This will involve spoilers for case 4.

In the previous version of case 4: Fry Noil says he heard two gunshots. In the previous version, he misheard because he was scared of getting shot and mistook glass breaking for a gunshot. As the writer, my logic was that Fry was so scared he would have taken anything he loud as a gunshot. Some players didn't find this believable. So, I wanted to make it better without fully changing what happened.

Now, Fry will only claim to have heard one gunshot. When Justina presses him if he heard a second one, he goes from saying he doesn't know to agreeing with Justina because Justina leads him on. Fry's offical statement will no longer include that he heard a second gunshot.

I went with this change because Justina leading the question makes sense for her character in case 4. She wants to solve this case quickly and isn't considering what her actions are doing (because in her mind, the ends justifies the means). Case 4 was written to show Justina's bias and flaws. Ferris even comments that Justina was leading the witness. Justina was never written to be a paragon of good, and I hope this change, along with how case 4 was written, helps her character be more than just a self-insert protagonist.

As the lead writer, I want to make improvements to the story and address any issues. Some story elements I will defend and some I am open to feedback. As long as those issues are presented respectfully, I am willing to consider any feedback given to me.