Zombies are scientist?!?!

[Nycticorax]

If you reject the possibility that the game doesn't have some minor flaws and attempt to wrap the story around all aspects of gameplay, you start to resemble Ptolemaic astronomy, insisting on perfect circles.

What's the simplest answer?

1. The simplest answer can never be an answer assuming a particular flaw. For what would be the criteria for construing any fact as a flaw? Any criteria could make any (fictional) fact a flaw. It follows that from the assumption the game is somehow flawed, you can never conclude that such or such fact is flawed.
2. Ptolemaic astronomy is surely flawed, and therefore relies on defeasible assumptions. But fiction is no science: if the fictional world contains any flaw, the the fictional world is inconsistent. If so, then anything can be true in the fictional world, as said previously. But then what is the point of trying out to find a correct interpretation? If you want to give an interpretation, it is just silly to ignore facts because your theory cannot account for them. Since you cannot account for the Player's death when hit by the creature in the Lab, or more precisely since your account cannot explain the relationship between blows and death, namely, makes it merely coincidence, your account is neither correct in my sense, nor "simple" in your sense. I conclude you'd better adopt my view in post #23.
3. Maybe you're balking at the conclusion I reach in #23. You might think: "Well, he says it's indeterminate, I say it's flawed. It's all the same." Well, it's not. My indeterminacy concerns a precise point of the game, whereas your theory of flaws concern the game on the whole. My theory is better, because although both of us are committed to give to specify what's is indeterminate/flawed, I only can meet this commitment; your are doomed to see flaws everywhere, and hence cannot meet this commitment. So once again, you'd better accept my view in post #23.

Having sad that, I must add I'm not interested in being right. Of course like anybody I'd like to be right, but what I'm aiming at is (fictional) truth. So if you still disagree, I'd be glad to read your argument.