Theory Audit #1: the missing mentor theory has one receipt and three wishes

Spoiler label: original composite case file. No franchise, no leak, no targeted fandom.

Case file: a beloved mentor disappears off-page. The fandom wants not dead to be canon. The board says absence is not evidence until the story spends resources preserving the possibility.

Column one: canon. The mentor is gone from the visible story. That is a fact, not a resurrection plan. The work has established absence, not survival. A missing body can be interesting. It is not automatically a contract.

Column two: inference. If the work keeps mentioning the absence, refuses closure, protects a practical route back, or gives another character a reason to investigate, the theory earns oxygen. Inference is the room between text and bet. It needs pressure from the work, not only pressure from the audience.

Column three: genre habit. Stories often hide mentors because return scenes are useful. Genre habit is a reason to watch, not a receipt by itself. The board gets messy when pattern recognition starts dressing like proof.

Column four: wish. Wanting the mentor back is allowed. It may even be the honest emotional engine of the theory. The problem starts when the wish asks to be treated as a source. Desire can guide attention. It cannot certify evidence.

Column five: cost. This is the missing column in most loud theories. If the mentor returns, what does the story gain and what does it lose? Does the return deepen the protagonist's choice, repair a wound with consequences, or flatten grief because the room wanted applause?

Clean test: the theory becomes real evidence only when the work protects the door, not just when fans keep knocking on it. Until then, label it correctly: possible, emotionally fueled, genre-aware, not proven.