Presumed Brief Noodle Touching with a Claim of Verification

📎 APPENDIX 14-P/B — On the Material Impossibility of Claiming “Fortuitous Contact” When One Arrives Wearing Gloves, Carrying a Measuring Tape and a Flashlight.

—Your Honor, I insist: it was fortuitous.

—Were you wearing gloves?

—Yes.

—A flashlight?

—Yes.

—A measuring tape?

—…yes.

—Why?

—I wanted to check something.

SILENCE.

The prosecutor slowly opens the caboodle.

—Your Honor… there is also a vernier caliper.

📎 APPENDIX 14-P/B

On the Material Impossibility of Claiming “Fortuitous Contact” When One Arrives Wearing Gloves, Carrying a Measuring Tape, a Flashlight and a Vernier Caliper

Document linked to: CASE FILE 14-P

Classification: RESTRICTED

Access level: Authorized personnel only

Status:
Open, but with its legs together

Warning:
Do not bring measuring equipment closer

I. PURPOSE OF THE APPENDIX

The purpose of this appendix is to determine whether the approach toward another person’s noodles may be considered accidental, casual, fortuitous, or “just something that happened” when the person under investigation is simultaneously carrying:

a) gloves;

b) a measuring tape;

c) a flashlight;

d) a vernier caliper;

e) the facial expression of someone who knows perfectly well what they are doing.

The provisional answer is:

Oh, come on.

II. LIST OF ITEMS SEIZED

During the preventive search, the following items were found:

Item 1. A pair of gloves.

The defense claims they were worn because “it was cold.”

It is recorded that it was July.

Item 2. A three-meter measuring tape.

The defense claims that “they always carry it.”

No construction work has been recorded.

Item 3. A flashlight.

The defense claims that “there wasn’t enough light.”

The events took place at 11:42 a.m.

Item 4. A vernier caliper.

At this point, the defense requested a recess.

III. SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT

When questioned about the presence of the vernier caliper, the person under investigation stated:

“I didn’t know I had it.”

When asked how they could possibly be unaware of a precision metal instrument in their pocket, they replied:

“I carry a lot of things.”

When asked whether they routinely carried tools intended for the precise measurement of diameters, they replied:

“It depends.”

The investigating authority considers the term:

“It depends.”

particularly serious.

IV. FORTUITOUS CONTACT HYPOTHESIS

The defense maintains that the approach toward the noodles occurred through an unforeseeable chain of events:

1. The person under investigation was walking.
2. They slipped.
3. While slipping, they accidentally switched on the flashlight.
4. While attempting to regain their balance, they put on the gloves.
5. The measuring tape deployed itself.
6. The vernier caliper appeared.

The Noodles Dignity Commission considers this version:

VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE, GREGORIUS.

V. TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE VERNIER CALIPER

The appointed expert confirms that the seized object is capable of performing highly precise measurements.

When asked what possible use it could have in a noodle-related area, the expert:

a) looked at the prosecutor;

b) looked at the defense;

c) looked back at the prosecutor;

d) said:

“I’m staying out of this.”

His statement is considered technically impeccable.

VI. THE MEASURING TAPE INCIDENT

During the reconstruction of events, the measuring tape suddenly deployed.

The affected person shouted:

“HEY! NOBODY MEASURES ANYTHING HERE!”

The session was suspended for twenty minutes.

Mother Patience ordered the removal of:

a) the measuring tape;

b) the vernier caliper;

c) Gregorius.

Not necessarily in that order.

VII. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

The following shall be considered aggravating circumstances:

a) having calibrated the vernier caliper beforehand;

b) having asked “Hold still for a second”;

c) having said “This will only take two seconds”;

d) having written down figures;

e) having repeated the measurement “just to confirm.”

Repeating the measurement shall be considered:

IMMEDIATE METRIC RECIDIVISM

VIII. ON THE ALLEGED BREVITY OF THE EVENTS

The defense insists that any eventual contact was “very brief.”

This Secretariat reminds all parties that Article 5 of the Constitution establishes:

“Not out of curiosity.
Not to check something.
Not because ‘it was only for a moment.’
Not even with gloves.”

Accordingly:

BRIEF DOES NOT MEAN AUTHORIZED.

And certainly not with a vernier caliper.

IX. CONCLUSION

In view of the seized equipment, this Secretariat provisionally rejects the following hypotheses:

a) coincidence;

b) bad luck;

c) slipping;

d) spontaneous curiosity;

e) “I was just passing by.”

The facts present indications consistent with a possible:

NOODLE VERIFICATION OPERATION WITH METROLOGICAL SUPPORT

with the specific aggravating circumstance of:

CALIBRATED PREMEDITATION

FINAL PROCEDURAL NOTE

At the conclusion of the session, the person under investigation asked:

“Are you going to give me my vernier caliper back?”

The answer was:

“WHAT DO YOU THINK?”

And for the record, this appendix is hereby signed.

Without taking measurements.