Etrata did not deny being capable of murder. She denied choosing this one and could not account for the gap surrounding it. That distinction mattered to Proft. A professional assassin with no contract, no motive and no memory was not a solved case; she was a clue pointing toward coercion.
Proft approached investigation as disciplined imagination. He reconstructed possibilities, tested the physical evidence and treated contradictions as openings rather than annoyances. Freeing Etrata into his custody created risk, but leaving her in a cell would allow the real killer to keep using the city’s assumptions.
Their partnership remained abrasive. Etrata knew routes and criminal habits the Agency could not admit to understanding, while Proft supplied a framework that separated suspicion from proof. Neither needed friendship. They needed the other person to notice what their own training made invisible.