Conclusion to previous entry:

We have seen here that Controllers in fulfilling these unrelated side quests do not only care that they reach the end, or even that they completely reach the end, but also care how they reach the end.  Does one care enough about a virtual friendship to their virtual identity to take hours to complete a cross-galatic fetch quest to reveal something about the virtual friend's past?  Does one care to save a unrelated species or race from extinction at the cost of fuel, supplies, and other time-critical opportunities.  Does one try to amass every resource imaginable making any challenge a relative ease as payment for their hours spent or does one relish the challenge of unlikely success and punishable failure?  How does one make the decision to rip themselves from the central narrative to a briefer, unrelated peripheral one or are they unable to relinquish the development of the story for a personal history item?  And in the case of the former, does this show weakness on the side of the Architects in formulating a compelling, involving narrative?   

These are all questions that when the answers are filled in by one of the five billion Controllers reveal private information about the real-life Controller such as the intrinsic motivations behind the control of a virtual simulation, the value the Controller has for a projected identity in general, and the amount of metacognition a Controller may have for such a task.  The answers also can reveal the creator of the system's (in this case, the Architects) ability to "lock in" Controllers, whether they are the divertive or single-minded type, to the experience they've created.  

The insights gleaned from these revelations about the Controllers and creators may have significant value for the roles of educators.