#39 - "A Résumé for Sue Ream"

[Hector]

The answer to the metapuzzle is something that may be involved in the tort of conversion. Don’t worry, the puzzle is not about obscure law stuff. Here‘s the Wikipedia article on conversion, in case you have never heard of the term. But you don’t need to know anything about law to solve the puzzle.

[Hector]

I have steps 1 and 2, I think, but no final answer seems to snap satisfyingly into place.

Edit: post-enlightenment. 100%! A clever construction & a satisfying solve.

Edit^2: And yet I was wrong! Beware...

[LesY]

I think I have it, but Hector’s post makes me nervous.

Several layers to this one, and I’m a little surprised the answer came in the way it did. But now I see why. Unless I’m wrong.

[FrankieHeck]

So much going on! I have an answer that I didn't get the way I thought I would, but I feel 100% sure of it. Fun and elegant puzzle. Had me guessing how it would turn out till the end.

And I'll report back if I'm wrong!

[Al Sisti]

Hector, how do you know you were wrong?

[Hector]

Hector, how do you know you were wrong?

Peter is generous in his feedback.

[MajordomoTom]

my first attempt to work through one of these ... OMG, the anagrams are killing me.

[Tina]

Posting here in the hopes that post-enlightenment will strike. I was thrilled to see something important after working at this for a while, but now I've hit a wall.

[Toby]

Me too. I am definitely part of the way there, but I can't wrap it up.

[Tina]

Well, that was fast! I'll report back if Peter says I'm wrong!

[LesY]

Reporting back - I was right!

Some solace for “taking strike three” on the MGWCC week 5. I tried to treat the 7 theme entries as cryptic-style clues and never got out of that rabbit hole.

[RPardoe]

Clever construction. Had an initial thought on the answer, but held back as it wasn't PGWish enough for my liking. Glad I did as I found a better and what I believe the desired answer. Shall see if that is what was intended or not.

[Laura M]

Finally got there (confirmed!). This one was beautifully constructed and I enjoyed it in the end, but I'm just really terrible at this sort of puzzle. (I admit to using an internet crutch--not Google though! Well, not much Google.)

[Meg]

That was a lovely final step! It’s so nice to eventually get the answer.

[Beth Tyrpin]

I found a little too much info. I discarded what I hope was a coincidence.

* Thanks to an explanatory email from the brilliant PGW I now know where I fouled up. I did submit the correct answer.

[Al Sisti]

I found a little too much info. I discarded what I hope was a coincidence.

* Thanks to an explanatory email from the brilliant PGW I now know where I fouled up. I did submit the correct answer.

Yeah, there's an added layer of elegance that has become a PGW trademark.

[ChrisKochmanski]

This is indeed an intriguing puzzle. I believe I'm almost all the way there. But I don't yet have that elegant last step (or maybe two?). There's time. I'll return to it soon.

[damefox]

Anyone want to give me a hint on this one? I've been working on it for quite a while, and I'm either done with step 1 or I'm so far down a rabbit hole I can't climb back out.

[ChrisKochmanski]

FINALLY got the last step. Don't know why I wasn't seeing it. A fellow solver had to show me I was there, I just needed to focus on the right part.

[Laura M]

Doh! I didn't realize until reading the writeup that the entire title is an anagram for "Measure for Measure"! (I may have mentioned that I'm hopeless with anagrams.) That's just brilliant.