Work Header


Chapter Text

Date: 10/8/2010, 10:11 AM
Subject: prelim rating eval for new parahuman

I just got confirmation that officers brought in a new parahuman after an incident at Winslow HS, and I need you to do a workup.

You can find the witness statements and Stalker's debrief in the usual intake directory.

Send me your results and cc the director, she's expressed a personal interest in this one... not surprising since Stalker was injured.

Dr. Lloyd Garvey, ENE Research Lead


Date: 10/8/2010, 10:45 AM
Subject: new phman notes

negative CRBN panels on admit, no rush on testing

SS transcript w/ dispatch warns abt. Master, Stranger

Init. witness rpts:
* Genned minion, duplicating another student
** cnfrm master, stranger
* father was hostile, engaged SS - compulsion effect? MS panel clean
* duration/persistence? How does it 'fall apart'???
***original fell apart? Not copy/duplicate??

Post-apprehension video, PRT squad on intake:
* Copy becomes original?
* 'peeling' is similar to how orig fell apart?
** timescale: how -long- to fall apart like this?
** better CAMERAS
** langer/kraissl lines?
* new 'original' uninjured? Brute?

Joan Booth, Analyst III-P


Date: 10/8/2010, 1:04 PM
Subject: re: new phman notes

Interview w/... MM?:
* CE seems p. clear; context?
* gen matches to witness stmts
* Ref. POV swap: original and copy switch? How much?
** If physical swap, do injuries carry? (Brute again)
* 'falling apart' - are there decomp products?
** is this from duration expiring, integrity loss, inability to maintain? (was tranked - consciousness a factor?)
* HS cam for rec when copy appears
* what happens to air? displacement?
* duration - copy genned during interview lasts... hour?
**compare w/ timeline, stmts, dispatch trscript timecodes
* makes copy - orig decomp, copy becomes orig again
** does decomp here differ from one in witness stmts?
* email intake?- video missing metadata

Joan Booth, Analyst III-P


Date: 10/8/2010, 1:28 PM
Subject: New Parahuman - Power Analysis

Dr. Garvey, I completed my initial workup as you requested.

She's definitely master, stranger: it looks like she creates a minion that duplicates another person, with high enough fidelity to fool casual observation.

After a variable amount of time, her original body fragments and disintegrates; the minion sheds the appearance of the other person and becomes a new 'original', with her original appearance.

We can't push for powers testing. Intake didn't find any immediate threat when we brought her in, but here are some notes for if she's cooperative and consents to testing in the future:

We're going to want to run the PACS batteries for master and stranger for sure. Probably changer, maybe mover, -maybe- brute? I'm curious about the persistence of injuries when the copy becomes the new original.

Make sure you get out the highspeed recording cart. The holding cell cameras didn't catch a lot of detail when she made a copy, it happens pretty fast. See if you can get more footage of the originals and duplicates

You're going to want sampling kits, too - there might be decomposition products when the 'original' breaks down and the 'duplicate' changes back into her.

Specific questions I'd be interested in:

  • So far, she's only duplicated that one girl, the redhead. Can she do anyone else? Bigger people? Smaller ones?
  • How long do her duplicates exist for? The witness statements from the school and the transcript from dispatch suggest a duration in minutes, but the video from when she was in holding shows her lasting over an hour.
  • This might be an integrity factor? The one that fell apart at the school was injured, so that might be contributing. Probably see about folding that into your brute testing request.
  • Losing consciousness might have disrupted her power - she was sedated prior to being brought in, and that might have been a contributing factor.
  • This is more covering-bases than anything else, but does she duplicate parahumans? Their powers?

Joan Booth, Analyst III-P


Date: 10/8/2010, 1:43 PM
Subject: re: New Ward

Based on what the analysts have provided, we're giving her the cape name 'Ancillary'.

I'll get the team preparing for a media workup like you wanted, but it's going to be brainstorms and thumb twiddles until we get a better idea of what she can do.

Phyllis Ryder, ENE Image Lead


Date: 10/9/2010, 2:24 PM
Subject: Ancillary and testing availability

Dr. Garvey:

We have a new parahuman who's signed up as a Ward and is going by the name 'Ancillary'.

She's going to be on-site for at least next week, so get back to me on when we can schedule power testing for her?

Kirsty Sobol, Ward Liaison


Date: 10/12/2010, 8:31 AM
Subject: re: Ancillary and testing availability

I spent most of the morning doing testing workup while Laurel was getting kit together. We can start in the afternoon if she's available, or I can start blocking out time later in the week if that's more convenient.

(also, working on a Saturday??? You could not pay me enough.)

Dr. Lloyd Garvey, ENE Research Lead


Date: 10/12/2010, 8:48 AM
Subject: re: New Parahuman - Power Analysis

I realize that I'm getting back to you on this after the weekend, but I just wanted to say that both the director and I appreciate the quick turnaround you managed on Friday.

She's coming back in for testing this week, so I'm going to start working out the test panels for that... there was an incident report over the weekend related to her, so could you take a quick look at that and give me a run-down?

She's signed on as a ward and her cape name is Ancillary, so use that to look up her files

(A note on Brute testing: unfortunately, we need consent for something like that, and that requires an IRB pass (and probably Guard oversight). I can ask her about it during the testing interviews and use her self-report to see if we can get further testing done.)

Dr. Lloyd Garvey, ENE Research Lead


Date: 10/12/2010, 10:16 AM
Subject: re: re: New Parahuman - Power Analysis

Dr. Garvey:

She's definitely acting like a Stranger - plays distraction, escapes while wearing another face. Did we have anyone monitoring the house?

This also settles that question about whether she only duplicated the one girl: Vista's debrief indicates she made a duplicate of her father.

Side note, definitely think about terminology with this one - I keep saying 'duplicate' when as far as I can tell, the duplicate -becomes- the original, which feels problematic. Maybe bring this up with Image?

Joan Booth, Analyst III-P


Date: 10/12/2010, 10:32 AM
Subject: Bug Report Received

Your bug report has been recorded and your ticket number is #1415926.

On 10/12/2010, you reported:

"Two files I looked at recently were missing metadata - a video log and a Ward debrief, both from Friday."



Parahuman: Ancillary
Date: 10/12/2010

Testing Personnel:
Dr. Lloyd Garvey, Research Lead
Dr. Elisa Bradley, MD
Laurel Balfour, Intern

Test Plan:

Introductory power interview with parahuman.

Medical workup and imaging for Ancillary's projection: establish baselines, parity deviations re: anatomical fidelity.

Test Record:

(Summaries follow; see original recordings and transcripts attached to this record)

Interview: Ancillary understands her power as 'making copies of people and swapping places with them'. Has made duplicates of classmates, parents (father and mother).

Interviewer requested demonstration of power, and Ancillary generated a duplicate after a short period of concentration.

Duplicate was taken aside by Dr. Bradley for evaluation; while separated, Ancillary was inattentive and distracted, becoming anxious when the copy vocalized due to a cold stethoscope.

Questioning revealed that Ancillary claims to not experience any kind of sensory link with her duplicate, that her duplicate 'wants what she wants' and 'knows what I know.'

After initial medical evaluation, the duplicate was taken for imaging; Ancillary insisted on being present while imaging was taking place.

Post-imaging, Ancillary demonstrated 'swapping' with her duplicate: no physical markers of change presented, duplicate claimed to be the original and vice versa for approx eight minutes, at which point 'Ancillary' began breaking down and disintegrated. Nine minutes after that, the duplicate began breaking down, revealing Ancillary.

Medical Examination:

Pt presents as an adolescent female.

BP and other physical markers within normal ranges; DTR assessments normal for patellar and plantar reflex. Heart and breathing sounds present.

Physical presentation demonstrates no abnormalities; pt declined blood draw, consented to non-invasive sampling (hair, nails, cheek swab)

Pt was interviewed/given standard conversational cognitive assessment during physical exam. Affect enthusiastic and responsive during conversation.

Pt demonstrated difficulty expressing concepts related to identity: identifies as Ancillary despite appearance as 'Emma', claimed ability to 'be her'.

During imaging, pt responded normally to MRI and scan results revealed no gross physical abnormalities.

Present during 'swap', observations match to those presented in Dr. Garvey's statement; pt/Ancillary did not demonstrate normative response, even as physical anatomy broke down. (nil pain rating when asked to report)


Ancillary's duplicates are physically indistinguishable from real people, even when examined by an expert.

Get a baseline for the duration of her duplicates - does the 'swap' result in the breakdown, if she doesn't swap do the duplicates last longer?

Further testing re: autonomy: Ancillary was distracted and distressed when separated from her duplicate: this could be indicative of something like Rankine's hypothesis vis-a-vis master minions as comfort objects, but I suspect there's some form of subconscious link between the original and the duplicate.

When samples were opened to be examined, no material was present: test to confirm whether they vanish when the duplicate does.

Future testing should involve psych personnel/assessment: Ancillary became less responsive/distracted, and having someone attending with a better toolkit might get us quicker answers to what's going on.

Get her to copy someone we have a baseline for. so we can get her claims about psychological replication verified. On that note, include PRT Master-Stranger testing and qualified proctor in future testing.



Date: 10/14/2010, 12:24 PM
Subject: re: Lab Samples

Dr. Garvey:

According to the lab techs, the samples weren't marked for immediate testing: by the time they got to them, the vials were empty.

I'll schedule Ancillary for another set of draws... tomorrow? And make sure the techs are aware of the importance of flagging them priority.

(Is it just me, or did we have an easier time with the Wards before this one?)

Laurel Balfour, Research Intern


Date: 10/15/2010, 8:57 AM
Subject: Ancillary: Testing with other Wards?


Just as a heads-up for next week... one thing we're looking at is whether Ancillary has a Trump factor: if her duplicating a parahuman can replicate their powers, in addition to the knowledge she seems to get.

I managed to lure Assault into the lab with cookies, but Ancillary's testing with him was inconclusive; our current hypothesis is that the increased 'personal knowledge' the copy gets is due to Ancillary's familiarity with them.

Since she's been spending a lot of time with the Wards, do you think you could narrow down the ones she's most comfortable with and arrange for them to be around for testing next week?

(if need be, I can repeat the Assault thing... if you give a parahuman a cookie, maybe you get some results ;) )

Laurel Balfour, Research Intern


Date: 10/15/2010, 4:37 PM
Subject: need key access to locked door

I need someone to come to lab 3C with a key for the utility closet. My intern's accidentally locked herself inside and I'd like to get her out before the weekend.

Just as a heads-up: there might be a 'creepy baby' present, so whoever you send needs to not have any phobias related to that.

Dr. Lloyd Garvey, ENE Research Lead


Date: 10/19/2010, 9:03 AM
Subject: Bug Report Received

Your bug report has been recorded and your ticket number is #1415934.

On 10/19/2010, you reported:

"I need to replace a parahuman's codename in the testing record, but its distributed through multiple files and there's no way to handle that without going through each file and renaming it."


Date: 10/19/2010, 9:22 AM
Subject: Support Request for Ticket #1415934

Doctor Garvey, you shouldn't be renaming the files at all... those are automatically generated by the database system. Just log into the database and update the name there, and the change automatically happens.

Edward Malley, Technical Support I


Date: 10/19/2010, 9:28 AM
Subject: re: Support Request for Ticket #1415934

Wait what. What's my login for this database? My intern was handling all the data entry for me, and she's on leave right now.

Dr. Lloyd Garvey, ENE Research Lead




Currency: Last revision to this file was on 10/19/2020 for reason: changed parahuman's codename.

Font is currently rated as a Master 2/Stranger 4, Mover 3/Changer 2.

Font creates a 'copy' : a projection of another person, that duplicates their appearance (and sometimes their personality, although this is inconsistent and appears to be dependent on how familiar Font is with the individual being duplicated.) Parahumans can be copied, but none of the available evidence suggests the projection can use the original's powers.

These projections can exist for approximately two hours before integrity failure takes place; integrity failure consists of increasing physical fragility, followed by disintegration as the projection becomes inert.

Projections appear to have no range limit that reasonable testing can evoke (as of 10/18/2010, Font was able to maintain a projection at the ENE PRT building while Font herself was at the ENE Protectorate headquarters in Brockton Bay, a distance of approximately fifteen miles).

The projections are autonomous: Font's self-reported during interviews that she has no conscious cognitive or sensory link to her projections.

Font is able to switch places and appearances with her projection. This can be done once per projection, at the cost of dramatically reducing the projection's duration and integrity: after approximately ten minutes, the copy (disguised as the original) exhibits integrity failure, while Font's disguise as the copy fails approximately twenty minutes after switching.

Note that post-switch, Font's physical appearance is identical to the person being copied - this is indicated by her Changer rating. Knowledge the copy has does not appear to be available to Font.


Font appears to be limited to one projection at a time; a projection with a new appearance can be created when the first one expires.

Font's range for switching places with her copy appears to be tied to her projection's range, to which no upper bound has been discovered (see above).

Font is able to create projections of individuals she visually apprehends, whether she sees them at close range, long range, or via a intervening medium such as photography or film.

The projection's fidelity is limited by how Font acquired the original. Physically, the projection is accurate to the original, regardless of the manner of acquisition; whether the individual's personal psychology is available to the projection appears to be a matter of how familiar Font is with them, with projections of individuals she knows well scoring up to a full seventeen on the Rainsford-Sanger MTR, accessing both declarative and procedural memory from the original.

Physical fidelity is limited to anatomy only; projections instantiate with replicas of their clothing and worn equipment, but these replicas are only physically accurate: duplicated chemicals are generally inert, duplicated microelectronics are generally nonfunctional. Replicas lose integrity and decay when the root projection does.

Font does not directly control her projections; they are autonomous and claim to -be- Font. Current hypothesis is that her projections are subconsciously or unconsciously controlled by her; further testing is pending review board approval.


  • Setup logistics for longer-range testing: Van and driver for initial work.
  • What's required for psychological replication? Simple proximity? Font having personal knowledge about them? Interaction?
  • Ongoing physical fidelity testing: Case 53s? Individuals affected by parahuman powers, like that one officer Shrike 'saved' after she got shot. (Dallons?)
  • Functional imaging workups for brain activity and related cognitive panels: How is she controlling her projections? If it's unconscious access, why don't her copies remember like she does? There's possibly some kind of anterograde agnosia going on - we've seen similar deficits in Clockblocker's breaker state with his aphasia.



Date: 10/19/2010, 2:11 PM
Subject: IVR best practices re: new Ward

Director: Looked through the testing reports for your new Ward, Ancillary/Font.

Based on what Dr. Garvey has found and based on our last internal audit, these are probably the guidelines you should be following:

1: She can copy anyone she wants as long as she's seen them, but if she doesn't have access to them, her projection isn't going to know what they know. Make sure she has an approved pool of people: Wards, her handler, and have interaction pass through them rather than introducing her to anyone new who has a security clearance.

2: Access upgrades. Consider passwords and biometrics compromised; it looks like her power doesn't handle microelectronics well, so you're going to want to secure access to sensitive areas and material with multi-factor authentication: possibly RFID, with a preference for smart cards. Idea is putting something in place that can't be easily duplicated.

3: I'd add a cautionary note about having her duplicate villains? We might want to be careful about giving someone who could 'be a villain' clearance or access to sensitive material.

PACS tag analysis came up with some decent matches: Satyrical in Las Vegas, Seir, with some lower correlates to parahumans like Blister and Kudzu.

Assuming she isn't hiding anything significant, we're looking at someone who can play 'find the lady' with us anytime she wants, and the way to beat that is to not play the game. Keep tabs on the original and her projection; control their movements and you negate her mover advantage. Eyes-on protocols and electronics support to negate her stranger mimicry, and the fact that her projections have time limits mean we can use quarantines for access control.

Intelligence is going to be the deciding factor: surveillance on her, give her a tail (double up on staff so they can keep track of her projection, same as her).

We'd have to put in more effort, but it's not impossible.

Devin Singer, Internal Security