Chapter 36: PATIENCE REWARDED
Three weeks of patience.
Three weeks of avoiding Price, maintaining my humble facade, continuing my covert physics sessions with Sheldon. Three weeks of watching and waiting while Price strutted through the department like he'd won something by humiliating me in a meeting.
The payoff arrived on a Tuesday morning.
I was reviewing departmental publications—a habit I'd developed to stay current with colleagues' work and monitor for potential threats. Price's latest paper sat in my inbox, freshly published in a mid-tier journal. The title was suitably impressive: "Novel Approaches to Enzymatic Stability in Extreme Conditions."
I opened it out of professional courtesy.
Fifteen minutes later, I was staring at a methodology section that would unravel his entire conclusion.
[ANALYSIS COMPLETE. CRITICAL ERROR IDENTIFIED IN PRICE PUBLICATION. TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION METHODOLOGY CONTAINS SYSTEMATIC BIAS. CONSEQUENCE: APPROXIMATELY 47% OF REPORTED RESULTS CANNOT BE REPLICATED.]
The mistake was subtle—buried in the technical details, easy to miss if you weren't looking carefully. Price had used a temperature calibration protocol that appeared standard but actually introduced variance his analysis didn't account for. Half his data was noise dressed up as signal.
I leaned back in my chair, a smile pulling at my lips despite myself.
Karma.
The temptation was immediate and powerful. I could send an anonymous tip to the journal's peer review board. Flag the error. Watch Price's reputation crumble as his paper was retracted, his methodology questioned, his career stalled by the very mistake he'd made while feeling too confident to double-check.
[OPTION IDENTIFIED: ANONYMIZED REVELATION PATHWAY. UNTRACEABLE SUBMISSION TO JOURNAL REVIEW PROCESS. PROBABILITY OF SUCCESSFUL RETRACTION: 78%. CONSEQUENCE TO PRICE: SIGNIFICANT PROFESSIONAL DAMAGE.]
It would feel so good.
But I sat with the temptation, turning it over in my mind like a stone, examining its edges.
What did I actually want?
Revenge was satisfying in the short term, but it created new problems. If Price's paper got flagged anonymously, he might suspect me—I was the obvious enemy, the one he'd publicly humiliated. Even if he couldn't prove anything, he'd be motivated to investigate me more thoroughly. And Price, for all his flaws, wasn't stupid.
More importantly, revenge didn't align with who I wanted to be.
I didn't die and get resurrected in a sitcom universe to become a petty academic villain.
The thought surprised me with its clarity. Somewhere along the way, between the survival instincts and the strategic calculations, I'd started developing actual values. Principles. A sense of the person I was building in this borrowed life.
I didn't want to be the guy who destroyed careers from the shadows.
[ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY IDENTIFIED: DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH PRICE. PRIVATELY ALERT HIM TO ERROR BEFORE PUBLIC DISCOVERY. POTENTIAL OUTCOMES: CONVERSION OF ENEMY TO NEUTRAL/ALLY; ESTABLISHED MORAL AUTHORITY; LONG-TERM STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE.]
The high road.
I composed the email carefully.
Kevin,
I was reviewing your recent paper on enzymatic stability—congratulations on the publication. However, I noticed what might be a potential methodology concern in the temperature calibration section that could affect reproducibility.
I'd be happy to discuss before anyone else catches it. No pressure—could just be my misreading. Let me know if you'd like to talk.
—Nathan
I hit send before I could second-guess myself.
The response came an hour later.
My office. 4 PM.
Terse. Clipped. The tone of someone who'd just discovered their castle had a structural flaw and wasn't happy about the messenger.
[PRICE RESPONSE RECEIVED. EMOTIONAL STATE ESTIMATED: DEFENSIVE CONCERN. MEETING WILL DETERMINE TRAJECTORY OF RELATIONSHIP.]
I spent the intervening hours in my lab, running experiments I barely focused on. The anticipation was distracting—not anxiety, exactly, but a heightened awareness of the approaching confrontation.
At 3:45, I walked to the physics building where Price had his office. The hallway was quiet, most faculty at afternoon seminars or hidden in labs.
His door was closed. I knocked.
"Come in."
Price sat behind his desk, the published paper spread out before him with several passages highlighted. His expression was complicated—anger, embarrassment, something that might have been grudging respect all mixed together.
"Sit down."
I sat.
For a long moment, neither of us spoke. Price studied me with the intensity of someone reassessing an opponent they'd previously underestimated.
"The temperature calibration," he said finally. "You're right. It's wrong."
"I thought it might be."
"You thought." His jaw tightened. "You knew. The way you phrased that email—'methodology concern' that 'could affect reproducibility.' You were being diplomatic. This isn't a might, it's a does."
I didn't deny it.
"Why come to me?" Price asked. "You could have sent this to the journal. Anonymous tip. My paper gets flagged, my reputation takes a hit. After what I said in that meeting, most people would have."
"Most people would have," I agreed. "I'm not most people."
"Obviously." He picked up the paper, studied the highlighted section again. "This is going to require a correction. Possibly a partial retraction of the affected conclusions. My department chair is going to be... displeased."
"Better you catch it now than someone else catches it in six months when they try to replicate your results and can't."
Price looked up sharply. "That's optimistic. Assuming anyone would bother trying to replicate."
"Your work is good enough that they would. The methodology error doesn't change the underlying insight—just the specific conclusions. Fix the calibration, redo the analysis, publish a correction. The idea survives even if the numbers change."
Something shifted in Price's expression. The defensive posture softened slightly.
"That's... a generous interpretation."
"It's an accurate interpretation. Your hypothesis about enzymatic stability in extreme conditions is solid. You just made a technical mistake that any of us could have made."
[EMOTIONAL STATE: PRICE DEMONSTRATING REDUCED HOSTILITY. GRATITUDE INDICATORS PRESENT. RELATIONSHIP TRAJECTORY: IMPROVING.]
Price was quiet for a long moment.
"I owe you an apology," he said finally. "For the meeting. The 'maintaining standards' crack. It was out of line."
"I asked a dumb question. You called me out for it."
"We both know you're not dumb." Price's eyes narrowed. "That question didn't match your grant results. I've been wondering about that. A lot of people have been wondering about a lot of things about you lately, Cole."
My stomach tightened, but I kept my expression neutral.
"I have good days and bad days. Like anyone."
"Mmm." He didn't look convinced, but he didn't push either. "Well. Regardless. Thank you for this. I'd rather take the hit now than have it blow up later."
"You're welcome."
I stood to leave. At the door, Price's voice stopped me.
"Cole."
I turned back.
"Why did you really do this? The honest answer."
I considered the question seriously. What was the honest answer?
"Because I'm not interested in destroying people," I said. "Even people who've been difficult. This job is hard enough without turning every colleague into an enemy."
[KARMA +10. TRUTH SPOKEN. ETHICAL POSITION ESTABLISHED.]
Price nodded slowly. "Okay. Fair enough." He gestured at the paper. "I need to contact the journal editor. We're going to be having some uncomfortable conversations in the department over the next few weeks."
"If you need a colleague to confirm the error identification, I'm available. Might make the conversation easier if you can say someone else caught it."
The offer surprised him. Surprised me too, honestly.
"I might take you up on that." Price stood, extending his hand. "We got off to a bad start, Cole. Maybe we can do better."
I shook his hand.
"Maybe we can."
Walking back to my lab, I felt lighter than I had in weeks.
[MISSION COMPLETE: 'PATIENCE REWARDED.' ENEMY CONVERTED TO POTENTIAL ALLY. KARMA METRIC: +10 (TOTAL: +15). NOTORIETY IMPACT: NEUTRAL. PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION: ENHANCED.]
I hadn't won by crushing someone. I'd won by choosing not to.
It felt strange—a different kind of victory than the System usually optimized for. Not the strategic dominance of the Sheldon challenge or the hidden maneuvering of the grant crunch. Just... being a decent person when I could have been vindictive.
Maybe that's who I'm becoming. In this borrowed life. Not just a survivor, but someone worth being.
The thought settled into my chest like warmth.
My phone buzzed. Leslie: How was your day?
I typed back: Interesting. Tell you about it at dinner. I think I made a friend.
Her response: You? Making friends? Without System assistance? Shocking.
It was a joke—she didn't know about the System, of course. But it landed differently than she intended.
I was making friends. Real ones. Building a life that had meaning beyond survival.
The new year was two months old, and Nathan Cole was becoming someone worth knowing.
[LEVEL UP: 7 → 8. +10 IQ RESERVE (PERMANENT). NEW SKILL UNLOCKED: 'SOCIAL INTUITION LV.1' — ENHANCED READING OF INTERPERSONAL DYNAMICS.]
I stopped in the hallway, absorbing the notification.
Level eight. A skill I hadn't expected—one focused on people rather than knowledge.
The System is learning what I value.
Or maybe I was teaching it.
Either way, the game had changed.
Want more? The story continues on Patreon!
If you can't wait for the weekly release, you can grab +10, +15, or +20 chapters ahead of time on my Patreon page. Your support helps me keep this System running!
Read ahead here: [ patreon.com/system_enjoyer ]