The emotional weight behind it — the desperation of someone for whom academic performance is survival rather than achievement — transmits through my voice with authenticity no performance could replicate.
“I push myself. Sometimes too hard. The recovery irregularities you noticed were probably fatigue patterns from overtraining rather than concealment indicators.”
The explanation is elegant because it uses real data — the recovery fluctuations Davin flagged — and reattributes them to a cause that’s verifiable without investigation.
Overtraining produces erratic energy patterns. A motivated student pushing beyond safe limits generates exactly the kind of micro-fluctuations that could be misread as concealment activity.
Davin considers this.
Writes three more notations.
Then closes her notebook with the specific gesture of someone concluding an assessment — not the definitive closure of satisfied investigation, but the provisional closure of someone who has gathered sufficient data for preliminary report while reserving judgment for future analysis.
“Thank you, Miss Dawn. I’ll recommend counseling services through the academy’s student welfare program. If you need additional support processing the impact of Professor Constantine’s conduct, those resources are available.”
“Thank you, Agent Davin.”
She stands. Collects her materials.
Pauses at the door.
“One more thing.”
The pause is either genuine afterthought or calculated final probe — with Davin, I can’t tell.
“The supplemental instruction sessions involved sustained physical contact, as documented by the thermal forensics. Were you ever uncomfortable with the physical component of the instruction, or did you view it as normal methodology?”
The question tests whether I’ll retroactively characterize the contact as unwanted — strengthening the misconduct case — or defend it as legitimate instruction — weakening the misconduct frame but supporting the alternative explanation that the contact served a genuine purpose I was aware of and compliant with.
“I trusted my professor,” I say.
The simplest possible answer.
Carrying the weight of truth in both directions simultaneously — the trust was real whether the framework is misconduct or love.
“I thought the methodology was appropriate because he told me it was. If it wasn’t, that’s his failure, not mine.”
Davin studies me for three seconds.
Nods.
Leaves.
The door closes.
I sit in the interview room for four minutes before moving, letting my shadow suppression remain at full compression, the monitoring crystal still recording, maintaining performance posture for exactly the duration a genuinely shaken student would need to collect herself before returning to the corridors.
At minute four, I stand. Exit the room.
Walk toward the east wing with the measured pace of someone processing emotional difficulty rather than executing tactical withdrawal.
My shadows maintain absolute suppression. The claiming marks pulse beneath concealment. Every surface of me performs the student Davin expects to find in the hallways after an interview about a professor who crossed professional boundaries.
Through the bond, Constantine’s signal arrives:
You were extraordinary.
I described our relationship as predatory grooming and you’re complimenting my performance.
