>>132925053> It could be extremely relevant to explain Takashima's personality or make her special in some way.In what way? The theory is about the connection between Yuunas. If you're dismissing details as unrelated to that connection, they're irrelevant to the theory, meaning that we still need an additional set of unrelated, coincidental explanations.
>That it can be a red herring.This is a non-sequitur. Why does the fact that in totally different circumstances about a different character, a different explanation would be more probably make it a red herring in the ACTUAL circumstances?
>Why? Because the point of a red herring is to make the audience or characters overlook the most likely explanation, not to simply say that the most likely explanation was a trick. If it's supposed to be a red herring, identify what other evidence it's making us overlook, don't just say "maybe in five chapters' time we'll realize something nobody could have realized was significant". Well, sure, maybe, but that's hardly a solid theory at this point.
>Why do you keep calling this one thing everything? Either bring up something another evidence or stop that.It's two things, and it's the total of what we've been told about who Takashima is. Choosing to treat that as not relevant to understanding her connection with Yuuna is a very odd decision.
>it's too soon to assume we have enough pieces of the puzzle to claim anything with that degree of certainty.>I'm just asking you to admit it's not absurd and random like you're making it out to be.The only one talking about certainty or calling things absurd is you. But as far as fitting what we know into a consistent narrative that doesn't require more explanation than it provides, Takashima coming first is a much weaker idea.
