Originally filed 14 June 2025. Digitised from the physical archive by order of the Chairman.

Summary

At approximately 7:43 PM on the evening of 14 June 2025, Conglomerate surveillance operatives detected an anomaly on the northeast porch pillar.

A small hat has been placed on the fake snake.

The Chairman is filing this grievance at the highest urgency classification available.

Background

Earlier that day, the Conglomerate Tribunal had issued its first formal verdict in the matter of TP-001: The Conglomerate v. The Aviators. The case was conducted with full procedural rigour. The verdict was guilty on all charges. The sentencing included an explicit escalation clause, which stated — and the Chairman quotes from his own ruling:

“Escalation to SEVERE will be considered if the fake snake is observed wearing a small hat.”

A small hat has now appeared on the fake snake.

The Chairman does not believe in coincidences.

The Incident

Timeline

The Hat

The hat is small. It appears to be decorative. It is sitting on the snake’s head at a jaunty angle that the Chairman can only describe as provocative.

The Chairman does not know where the hat came from. The Chairman does not know who manufactures hats in this size. The Chairman does not wish to know. What the Chairman knows is this: that hat was not there before Fava read the tribunal transcript, and it is there now.

Evidence Exhibit A — Photographed by the Field Intelligence Division. The Chairman has reviewed this image and wishes the record to reflect that the hat’s angle is, in his professional assessment, deliberately provocative.

Analysis

There are two possible explanations.

Explanation 1: The Aviators, having been found guilty in absentia, have escalated their campaign against the Conglomerate by accessorising the fake snake in an act of psychological warfare. This would represent an unprecedented level of aviator strategic capability and would require an immediate reassessment of the threat level.

Explanation 2: Fava read the tribunal ruling, found it amusing — which it is not, it is a legal document — noticed the escalation clause about the hat, and placed a small hat on the snake as what he presumably considers a joke.

The Chairman considers Explanation 2 overwhelmingly more likely.

The Chairman does not consider it a joke.

Charges Under Consideration

The Office of the Chairman is evaluating the following charges against the individual known as Fava:

1. Contempt of Tribunal — Deliberate mockery of a Conglomerate judicial ruling within hours of its publication.

2. Tampering with Sovereign Infrastructure — The Fake Snake Deterrent System, though compromised by aviator nesting activity, remains a classified Conglomerate defence asset. Placing a hat on it constitutes unauthorised modification.

3. Triggering of Escalation Clause — The tribunal ruling explicitly stated that the appearance of a hat would trigger escalation to SEVERE threat level. By placing the hat, Fava has manufactured a security crisis for his own amusement.

4. Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Household — See also: PR-001 for prior documentation of Fava’s judgment.

Threat Level Reassessment

In accordance with the escalation clause established in TP-001, the Chairman is compelled to raise the territorial security threat level.

Previous threat level: ELEVATED

Current threat level: SEVERE

The Chairman wishes to make clear that he takes no pleasure in this escalation. The Chairman established the escalation clause as a threshold for genuine security deterioration. The fact that it was triggered by a member of his own household — as what appears to be a prank — makes this worse, not better.

The system was designed to protect the Conglomerate. Fava has weaponised it for comedy.

This will not stand.

Immediate Actions Taken

1. The hat has been photographed for evidentiary purposes.
2. The hat has not been removed. It will remain in place as evidence until the investigation concludes.
3. Fava has been informed that he is under investigation. Fava’s response was, and the Chairman quotes: “It’s just a little hat.”
4. It is not just a little hat. It is contempt.
5. Luna has been directed to increase porch surveillance. Luna was already barking. Luna is always barking. This directive changes nothing operationally but has been issued for the record.

Recommendations

1. Formal charges should be filed against Fava. The Chairman recommends TP-002 — The Conglomerate v. Fava: Contempt of Tribunal and Infrastructure Tampering.
2. The threat level should remain at SEVERE until the hat is removed by the Chairman, at the Chairman’s discretion, at a time of the Chairman’s choosing. Not before.
3. Fava’s next personnel review should reflect this incident prominently.
4. The escalation clause in future tribunal rulings should be revised to account for the possibility that threats may originate from within the household. The Chairman did not anticipate this. The Chairman has learned.

Closing Statement

The Chairman built a judiciary. The Chairman wrote a ruling. The Chairman included, as a measure of institutional thoroughness, an escalation clause specifying the conditions under which the threat level would be raised.

And Fava — Fava, who has already received an unsatisfactory personnel review, who has already been documented as a risk to Conglomerate governance, who was explicitly warned in the tribunal transcript that the situation was under control —

Fava put a hat on the snake.

The Chairman’s authority is not a suggestion. It is not a prompt for comedy. It is not a creative writing exercise for household members who think they are funnier than they are.

The hat is small.

The offence is not.

Filed under URGENT classification. The Chairman’s Earl Grey has gone cold during the preparation of this document. This has been noted as an additional grievance.

Signed,

Dexter Esq.

Chairman of the Conglomerate

“Do better, be better.”