Author: Marisol Quaye
Status: Draft / Not Transmitted
Timestamp: 03:14 local cavern cycle
Summary:
Whisperwood exhibits non-random adaptive response to extraction methodology. Current models insufficient.
Observations:
Resonance Drift
Measured resonance variance following reduced-cut harvesting shows stabilization within 2–3 growth cycles. This contradicts prior assumptions that resonance loss is permanent post-extraction.
Response to Intentional Delay
When harvesting was postponed despite quota pressure, surrounding flora increased bioluminescent output. This was not correlated with nutrient influx or aether density changes.
I cannot account for this under current models.
Soil Memory Indicators
Root density increased specifically along previous cut lines, not evenly across the grove. This suggests localized correction rather than general regrowth.
The forest appears to be responding, not recovering.
Interpretation (Tentative):
I am increasingly convinced Whisperwood cannot be treated as a passive resource.
Its behavior resembles:
feedback
adjustment
refusal
These are not metaphors. They are functionally descriptive.
Risk Assessment:
Continued deep-cut extraction may not cause immediate collapse, but will likely provoke delayed systemic response. This response may not target the extraction site directly.
Potential outcomes include:
corridor destabilization
predator migration
resonance inversion
loss of future yield entirely
These risks cannot be mitigated by increased control.
Recommendation (Personal):
Suspend harvesting.
Not indefinitely.
Not permanently.
Suspend it until we understand what we are interacting with.
Addendum (Unlogged):
I am aware this recommendation will be ignored.
I am also aware that once crossed, this threshold cannot be uncrossed.
If I am wrong, the cost is delay.
If I am right, the cost is everything that follows.
I am no longer certain ignorance is safer than restraint.
— M. Quaye
(Report ends here. No transmission marker.)