The top floor. Elena herself waited for him in the expansive, empty reception area. Dressed in a sharp, deep blue suit, her expression was one of pure professional coolness, a stark contrast to the relaxed figure from the apartment.
"Right on time, Mason." She gave a slight nod, bypassing any pleasantries. "Follow me. The evaluation is prepared."
She led him into a room that made Mason's heart tighten. It was less an interview room and more a high-tech medical observation suite or biofeedback lab. In the center sat an ergonomic chair, surrounded by an array of unfamiliar instruments equipped with electrodes and sensors. One wall was a large one-way mirror; another held several display screens, one of which showed complex waveforms and data streams.
"Please, sit." Elena indicated the chair. "For a more precise assessment of your cognitive processes, we need to monitor some basic physiological metrics—heart rate variability, galvanic skin response, brainwave patterns. This helps us differentiate between your intuitive judgments and logical analysis." Her tone was calm, as if describing a routine procedure.
**Intent and Purpose:Mason immediately realized this so-called "physiological monitoring" was itself part of the test—gauging his psychological composure and performance under observation. He needed to show appropriate tension, but not fear. Simultaneously, he had to make the most of every opportunity to use his ability.
He complied, sitting down and allowing a silent technician to attach sensors to his head and fingers. The cool touch was followed by a faint hum from the equipment. On the large display, waveforms representing his physiological state began to pulse.
"Relax, Mason," Elena said, standing to the side, her eyes on the screens. "The test is simple. I will show you several 'case slices' based on real events. All you need to do is: first, using your logic and experience, tell me what the core issue of the event likely is; second, I will provide some additional information fragments, which may be true or false; third, you need to give a synthesized judgment and explain your reasoning. We are focused on your thought process and intuitive capability."
**Test Commences: Event One — "QuickFresh" Food Poisoning Incident**
A concise case summary appeared on the screen: a massive food poisoning incident at the local fast-food giant "QuickFresh," multiple hospitalizations, public outcry, plummeting stock price.
Elena's voice was even, tinged with guidance: "Mason, let's set intuition aside for a moment. Just from the perspective of a convenience store employee who deals with food daily, where do you think the failure point in such an incident most likely is?"
Mason's thoughts were instantly pulled back to the confines of the convenience store. The hum of the cooler, the daily expiry date checks, the occasional ingredients lost due to improper storage… These images flashed through his mind. *Mass poisoning… the source is most likely the ingredients themselves. Either contaminated at the supply source, like substandard meat or pesticide-laden produce, or a lapse in QuickFresh's own central kitchen or distribution chain—temperature control failure, cross-contamination. At our store, our biggest fear is the cooler failing overnight; a whole crate of valuable frozen goods could be ruined.* He quickly connected the abstract business case to the familiar routines of his daily life, finding his anchor for analysis.
He organized his words, aiming for clarity: "Based on my experience at the store, the problem most likely lies in the ingredient source or the storage and transportation stage. For instance, the supplier provided subpar ingredients, or the cold chain was broken during delivery, leading to massive bacterial growth. At my store, we place extreme emphasis on temperature checks and expiry date verification upon receipt—it's the most basic and critical line of defense."
Elena gave a slight nod, tapping something into her tablet. She then introduced variables almost conversationally: "A very practical perspective. Now, what if two additional pieces of information emerged: an anonymous tip claiming QuickFresh systematically uses near-expiry ingredients to control costs; and a leaked internal speech from the QuickFresh CEO vehemently denying management issues and hinting at possible malicious poisoning by a competitor. Would these change or supplement your initial judgment?"
Mason frowned slightly. *Anonymous tip about using near-expiry goods? That's not unheard of. Discounting items close to their expiry date to reduce waste is common, but 'systematic use' sounds deliberate and dangerous. As for the CEO's claim… 'malicious poisoning'? That sounds like complicating the issue to divert attention. We've had malicious complaints at the store too, but they're usually small-scale, hardly capable of causing such widespread, systemic failure.* His internal scale tipped towards internal management failure being the primary cause; the CEO's vehement reaction seemed suspicious.
He weighed his words: "The tip's content has some plausibility; cost control is a consideration for every business. But the CEO directly throwing out 'malicious poisoning'… feels a bit too eager. In my experience, the first step is usually to check internal processes thoroughly for any lapses. Pointing directly at external factors like that makes me wonder if it's an attempt to cover up something worse internally."
*(Mason subtly activated his ability)*, verifying the CEO's statement was untrustworthy. He added: "Intuitively, I also find that CEO's defense lacks credibility. The investigation focus should perhaps be more on their internal quality standards and supply chain monitoring procedures."
Elena didn't immediately judge right or wrong but asked with interest: "Fascinating. Suppose you were to design the simplest improvement plan for QuickFresh, based on your hands-on experience. Where would you start?"
Mason answered almost without thinking: "First, strengthen the intake inspection. Responsibility must be assigned to specific individuals, with sign-off confirmation—like at my store. Whoever receives the goods is responsible. Second, establish a clearer traceability system. Records for where a batch of ingredients came from, what steps it went through, so if there's a problem, you can trace it back to the source. These are basics, but strict execution is key."
"A ground-level perspective often reveals overlooked details," Elena commented, her tone carrying a hint of approval as she deftly eased the atmosphere. "Alright, let's relax and look at the next case. Consider it analyzing potential 'trouble' in another industry."
**Event Two — "Oasis" Tech Data Breach**
A new case interface popped up.
Elena guided him: "Mason, a data breach at a tech company might sound a bit distant from your life. Try thinking from the angles of 'information' and 'access.' Like in a convenience store, different employees have different levels of access to view and operate information."
Mason thought, *Access… right. The store manager has top-level backend access, can see all data, change prices, place orders. A regular clerk can only process sales; even returns require authorization. A data breach just means confidential information was seen by someone who shouldn't see it. Either someone 'with access' stole it internally, or the system had a vulnerability exploited from the outside.* He struggled to translate the unfamiliar concept into a familiar pattern. *'State-sponsored hackers'? That sounds terrifying, like saying a convenience store theft was orchestrated by an international crime syndicate. Not impossible, but how likely? More probable is internal negligence or ordinary hackers.*
He tried to articulate his understanding: "I think the core issue is likely still in access management and system security. Like our store's POS system, passwords can't be too simple and need regular changes. If an employee leaves, their access must be revoked immediately. The 'state-sponsored hacker' narrative feels like directing the problem towards a very hard-to-verify direction."
Elena nodded approvingly. "A good entry point, simplifying complexity. Now, what if information emerges suggesting the breach method matches that of a known hacker group, and simultaneously, a former security head recently fired by Oasis makes veiled implications on social media, implying the company knew of the risks but ignored them. How would you weigh these?"
Mason pondered, *Hacker methods I don't understand, but a fired employee complaining… that's common. Like if someone gets fired from the store, they might badmouth the company. You can't take it all at face value, but sometimes it does expose hidden problems. So, don't get dazzled by the 'state-sponsored' label. Whether there are real internal management flaws is more worthy of deep investigation.*
He analyzed: "The fired employee's grievances need to be viewed cautiously but not completely ignored. In comparison, the 'state-sponsored hacker' claim seems more like a smokescreen. I think the investigation should proceed on two tracks, but internal management should have higher priority."
*(Ability activated)*, Mason sensed the former head's complaints were closer to the truth.
Elena delved deeper, her tone more exploratory: "Suppose you were an ordinary employee at Oasis, much like yourself in reality, and you unintentionally discovered a potential security flaw. You reported it, but it vanished into a black hole. What would you do?"
Mason thought based on his own circumstances and personality. *What could I do? Report over my supervisor's head? Might offend my direct boss. Report anonymously? Too risky. Most likely, I'd protect myself, secretly save records of discovering the issue, and then try to avoid that minefield.*
*(His reply to Elena):* "I… would probably first make sure I have evidence, like screenshots or notes on the reporting date and recipient. If nothing happens afterwards, I might just have to focus on my own job and hope nothing major blows up. After all, when you're at the bottom, your voice doesn't carry much weight." His reply conveyed the pragmatism and helplessness of a low-level employee.
Elena looked at him thoughtfully, softly repeating, "'When you're at the bottom, your voice doesn't carry much weight'… Yes, that is the root of many problems." She paused, then shifted topics, her tone slightly graver. "Alright, let's look at the final scenario. This may involve more complex trade-offs."
**Event Three (Pressure Escalates) — Involving Potential Conflict of Interest**
Elena's expression became subtle. "Final case. Assume my firm, 'Voss Risk Consultancy,' is hired by a chemical company, 'Delta Chem,' facing an environmental scandal. Our task is to assess the scandal's real impact on them and formulate a response strategy. But during the assessment, my team discovers Delta Chem may have withheld from us more severe pollution data that could lead to massive legal liability. What would you advise me to do? A. Terminate the contract immediately and anonymously report to regulators. B. Confront the client, demand full data disclosure, or terminate cooperation. C. Complete the assessment based on available data, take the money, walk away, and pretend ignorance."
Mason felt the pressure in the air spike. *This question is too pointed. Option C is definitely out—against conscience, full of future trouble. Option A feels like playing with fire, unsure who gets burned. Option B is the most direct but also most likely to immediately blow up the deal. It's like asking, if I discovered the store manager had a serious problem, should I go straight to the owner?*
*(Ability activated)*, Mason perceived this wasn't a purely hypothetical scenario; there was a real dilemma behind it.
He took a deep breath. *(To Elena):* "Ms. Voss, this question… I get the feeling it might not be just a hypothetical?" (He noticed a subtle shift in Elena's gaze.) "If I must choose, I might try to execute a more… nuanced version of Option B. For instance, not a direct, confrontational ultimatum, but formally requesting more complete data support under the pretext of 'conducting a more comprehensive risk assessment to better protect the client's long-term interests.' If they refuse or are evasive, that in itself speaks volumes. Then, considering termination, we'd be in a stronger position."
Elena fell silent. This silence lasted longer than any before. Only the faint hum of the equipment filled the room. Finally, she reached out and shut down the main displays. "Evaluation concluded, Mason. Your performance… far exceeded my expectations."
After Mason briefly left the room, Elena stood before the one-way glass, gazing at the empty chair. Sophia's (assuming she was in the monitoring room) voice came through the internal comm, professional and cool: "Elena, physiological data baseline stable, stress response within controllable range. Logical deduction paths clear, entirely based on life experience, no anomalous knowledge base detected. But the intuitive accuracy at key junctures… is abnormally high."
Elena didn't respond immediately. Her fingertips unconsciously traced the edge of her tablet. *It's not just the accuracy, Sophia,* she thought to herself. *It's his thought pattern. He can use the most limited, most fundamental building blocks of grassroots experience to construct remarkably solid logical frameworks. And his attitude when answering questions about the plight of low-level employees and that final conflict-of-interest dilemma… that practical, untainted pragmatism from being in the trenches, and an underlying… almost stubborn sense of principle. That quality is far too rare on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley.* A mix of high appreciation, intense curiosity, and even a trace of barely perceptible protective instinct stirred within her. The resilience and purity this young man displayed were even more compelling than she had anticipated.
When Mason returned to the room, Elena's demeanor had shifted subtly—less professionally distant, more genuinely respectful. She reiterated the offer, mentioning not just the position and salary, but also "providing a platform where you can truly understand and harness your innate gift."
Mason listened very seriously. He could feel the weight of this offer and Elena's sincerity at this moment. *(Internal Monologue):* *She's being genuine; I can feel it. This opportunity is too good, almost unreal. But what am I right now? Someone who just crawled above the survival line, who might struggle with next month's rent, diving headfirst into her world? I haven't even unraveled the mysteries around me. Who is Samuel? What exactly is the System? Joining now, I'd just be a pawn, maybe even cannon fodder. I need money, need to find my footing first, need to figure out who I am. I can't hand my fate over completely, even if this person seems able to help.*
After Elena finished, Mason was silent for a moment. He looked up, his gaze sincere and even carrying a hint of apology. "Ms. Voss, thank you. Truly. To be honest, the terms you're offering… for someone like me, it's like manna from heaven." (He offered a wry smile.) "But precisely because it's so good, I feel… I'm not ready to catch it yet. I'm in debt, living in a storage room, and know almost nothing about the world you're describing. What I need most urgently right now isn't to leap into a more complex vortex, but to first… pull myself completely out of the mud. I need to earn some money, settle my basic life, and need some time alone to figure out exactly what these changes happening to me are all about. I'm afraid if I follow you now, not only would I be of little help, but my own ignorance and lack of preparedness might cause trouble for you."
His refusal wasn't born of fear or distrust, but from a clear-eyed assessment of his own current situation and a simple, unpretentious desire for the dignity of standing on his own two feet first. This honesty and self-awareness only intensified the appreciative gleam in Elena's eyes.
Elena studied him for a few seconds, then finally nodded slowly, handing over a black business card. "I understand, and I respect your decision. Remember this number, Mason. It's not a job offer, but a… perhaps, a channel for another option when you need it. When you feel ready, or when you encounter 'trouble' even you can't comprehend… call me." Her tone carried a gravity, nearly a solemn promise, that hadn't been there before.