To Party C,
I am writing regarding Party A.
I understand that Party C is not a party to the commercial relationship between Party A and Party B. I also understand that this may limit what Party C can do about Party A. Still, because the relationship occurs in Party C’s room, I believe Party C should be aware of the atmosphere Party A is creating inside it.
I came to the room to receive a work.
I received the work.
Beside it, I received additional information.
I did not initially know what to make of the additional information, but Party C had placed it there, in red, so I assumed it had been placed there for a reason. I understand now that Party C did not intend the red to function as a warning. I appreciate that clarification. At the time, however, it did make me wonder whether the work might be unsafe in some way.
Then Party A began asking questions.
At first, I thought the questions were reasonable. Party A wanted to know what the notice meant, who had produced it, and why it appeared beside the work. But Party C answered that the notice was optional information, and Party D explained that it was only a probabilistic estimate.
That should have resolved the matter.
Instead, Party A continued.
Party A questioned the categories.
Party A questioned the method.
Party A questioned whether the work had been received.
Party A questioned whether a report had been recorded.
Party A questioned who owned the room.
Party A questioned who selected Party D.
Party A even questioned who pays Party C.
I do not know what Party A hoped to accomplish by asking so many questions after the answers had already been provided.
Party C explained that the result was unavailable.
Party A asked what unavailable meant.
Party C explained again that the result was unavailable.
Party A asked whether the work had been received.
Party C explained that the result was unavailable.
At some point, a person must decide whether they are seeking information or refusing it.
I am concerned that Party A’s reaction may itself be relevant context for Party B.
I do not mean that defensiveness proves anything. I understand that Party C makes no judgment about defensiveness. Still, when a Party A responds to optional information by demanding to know who made it, why it exists, what happens to the work, whether records are kept, and who is responsible for the result, a reasonable person naturally begins to wonder why a Party is so troubled by a feature that has no effect unless the Party B chooses to give it one.
Before the meeting, I had only the estimate.
After the meeting, I had Party A’s behavior.
I now find the behavior more concerning than the estimate.
For clarity, I have organized the relevant evidence regarding Party A’s concern that Party D may have received the work.
1. Party A voluntarily entered the room.
Party A chose to offer the work to Party B through Party C’s room. It therefore seems reasonable to understand Party A as having authorized the room to handle the work through any feature it chooses, however it chooses.
Party A appeared to want the room to carry the work without using it.
2. Party D could not assess the work without access to it.
Party A repeatedly asked whether Party D had received the work, but I do not know how Party A expected Party D to produce an origin estimate without receiving the work whose origin was being estimated.
Party A appeared to object to the process required to produce information Party B might wish to receive.
3. Receipt would not alter Party A’s claimed sourcehood.
Party D had already explained that receipt establishes custody, not origin.
If Party A made the work, Party D’s receipt would not make Party A any less its source. I therefore did not understand why Party A treated possible receipt as though it threatened the truth of Party A’s account.
4. Any custody concern is separate from the estimate.
I recognize that Party A may wish to know what happened to the work after it entered the room. Those may be legitimate questions for Party C.
They do not explain why Party D should be denied access to the work.
They also do not explain why Party B should be denied access to the estimate while Party A waits for a complete account of the room’s internal operations.
The operations of the room that Party A agreed to should not have to stop whenever Party A has an unresolved procedural concern.
5. Participation does not create a right to inspect the room.
Party A seemed to confuse participation in the commercial relationship with a right to examine every process by which Party C maintains the room.
Party C may owe Party A a functioning room. I do not believe Party C must disclose every internal movement that occurs within it.
I also do not believe Party C must disclose specifics about how it uses Party A’s work.
A direct relationship still requires infrastructure.
6. Party A’s level of concern created additional concern.
Before the meeting, I had not wondered whether Party D received or retained the work.
Party A’s repeated insistence made the route of the work seem important.
I do not mean that concern proves anything. Still, if Party A is the source, I am uncertain why examination by an independent party would produce such an intense response.
A genuine source might reasonably expect the analysis to confirm what the source already knows, regardless of whether the analysis is correct or erroneous.
7. Party A appeared to claim continuing control over work already offered.
Party A spoke as though offering the work to Party B did not also place it inside Party C’s room.
Party A seemed to believe that because the work originated with Party A, no other party could receive, examine, classify, or describe it without Party A’s continuing permission.
That degree of control seems difficult to reconcile with offering work through Party C’s room.
Party A may own the work. But the work is in Party C’s room. Party A does not own what Party C does with the work.
8. Party A sought to limit Party B’s independent access to information.
Party A asked Party C to remove the notice because Party A disputed the estimate and did not know what had happened to the work.
But those were Party A’s concerns.
Party B may have different concerns.
Party B should not have to go to Party A with those concerns. Party C is in a much better position to address any concerns Party B may have regarding Party A’s work.
Allowing Party A to remove information until Party A is satisfied with how it was produced would allow Party A to determine which information Party B may consider when deciding how to receive Party A’s work.
That would make the relationship considerably less direct.
I recognize that some of these considerations assume Party D received the work, while others concern why it should matter whether Party D received it.
These are separate questions.
Taken together, they do not establish that Party A is not the source. They do, however, provide important context regarding Party A’s response to an independent estimate of sourcehood.
I therefore suggest that Party C preserve this context for Party B.
A simple status line on the work would be sufficient:
PROCESSING QUESTIONS RAISED
The status would make no determination about whether Party A’s concerns were valid. It would merely create a durable record that the questions were raised and make that record available to Party B.
Party B could choose whether to view it.
This would not create another party to the relationship.
It would merely preserve information about what occurred inside the room.
Party A seemed to believe that having made the work entitled Party A to determine where it came from. I understand why Party A might feel that way. But Party A is not independent of Party A.
Party D is.
Party D was not present during the making, has no personal investment in the work, and does not know Party A. That seems precisely why Party D can assess the matter without bias.
Party A repeatedly emphasized being present during the creation. To me, this only confirms that Party A is too close to the matter to evaluate it objectively.
I also found Party A’s insistence that the notice be removed uncomfortable.
The notice was optional.
Party B could choose whether to view it.
Party A could choose to disable its availability.
Party B could still request it.
Party A therefore had choices. Party B had choices. Everyone had choices.
Party A appeared dissatisfied because none of the choices produced the outcome Party A preferred.
That is not the same as having no choice.
I respect Party A’s right to disagree with the estimate. I do not believe Party A has the right to prevent Party B from receiving information merely because Party A does not trust it or considers it potentially consequential.
Those are Party A’s concerns.
Party B should be allowed to form an independent decision.
I formed mine.
I no longer feel comfortable maintaining a direct relationship with Party A.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not asking Party C to interfere in the relationship. I am asking Party C to protect the conditions that allow the relationship to remain direct.
I initially believed that a work-level notice would be sufficient.
I no longer do.
Party A did not merely raise questions about the processing of one work. Party A challenged the estimate, the method, Party D’s access, Party C’s authority, and Party B’s ability to receive independent information.
Perhaps Party C could therefore consider a creator-level notice. Nothing punitive. Simply context.
CREATOR HAS CHALLENGED AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Or:
CREATOR RESPONSE UNDER REVIEW
Or, if Party C prefers language that does not imply a judgment:
ADDITIONAL CONTEXT AVAILABLE
The notice could be neutral in color. Perhaps amber.
It could remain beside Party A’s future work until Party D determines whether Party A’s response is consistent with responses commonly associated with authentic creators.
Party B could choose whether to view it.
Party A could choose whether to respond.
Any response could become additional context.
This would not interfere with the commercial relationship. It would only help Party B understand it.
I hope Party C will take this concern seriously.
I attempted to report Party A’s conduct through the available option. A message appeared briefly confirming that my report had been submitted. I do not know whether Party A’s work was included in the submission. I assume the appropriate parties received whatever they required.
No response is necessary.
I would simply like the room to remain safe, fair, transparent, and direct.
A Party B
Independently
The Full Set
Part #2: A Party B Writes to the Room
Part #3: Party D Writes to the Room
Your attention is the rarest currency. Thank you for the exchange.
— Mabst
Filed under: Four Chairs
Explore more:
Home • Archive • Guide • Rights
Makari • Stomari • Mabst • Panoma
Video • Audio • Gallery • Catalog
Creative practice. Art lives here.
Keep the studio close and share the way in.
Copyright © Kirenya. All rights reserved.
Access is provided to human readers, viewers, and listeners, including subscribers and members, for personal reading, viewing, and listening. Please do not reproduce or share copies of this work, or upload, submit, store, scan, classify, transmit, or otherwise provide or enable access to it through third-party AI systems, content scanners, automated content-analysis or detection tools, content-scanning browser extensions, or other automated services, or to train, evaluate, or develop any AI or machine-learning model, without written permission, except where permitted by law.
Sharing links and citing brief excerpts with clear attribution are welcome.
Full Copyright & Usage Notice: link
Rights questions: email
Continue with Mabst
Elsewhere in the Studio
✧ Future Professions
Each entry in this collection names a role that becomes necessary when a society changes enough to require it.
Kirenya is a creative studio weaving fiction, nonfiction, frameworks, visual works, and hybrid pieces that move between dream, structure, and signal. Across pen names, I explore layered meaning through stories, essays, systems, and experimental dispatches.
Share or gift access
Share with your people, or gift another reader access to the studio.