I'm surprised that you ask why I focused on details such as the shape of the door, when I already explained exactly why: because such details are the only information your cartoon conveys.
So, for instance, the cartoon starts with a door. Is the appearance of the door a meaningless detail, or not? If it is not, then I can ask exactly how you know that there was not a double door instead, or a pressure hatch, or a long corridor with no door at all. If you instead insist that that's just a meaningless detail, well then, we can ignore that part of the cartoon and move on.
But then, we can go on to do that for every single thing and person and action in every panel of the cartoon. How do you know that there were two computer operators and not three? How do you know their genders, or how they were dressed? How do you know that the killer used a gun, or that there was a killer instead of contact poison on the keyboards, or a suicide pact among the operators, or the operators are still alive today enjoying their vast hush money wealth? How do you know that the weapons controls weren't analog?
You can keep dismissing those questions as irrelevant, which can only mean that the parts of the cartoon the questions are about are irrelevant, until we have nothing left but some blank empty squares to discuss.
Or you can maintain that the facts are important but admit that you know none of them, which makes the entire cartoon a mere work of fiction.
That's why "lacking all verisimilitude" is a more completely damning criticism of the cartoon than you might have realized at first. Calling it untruthful would have been far more generous.
Respectfully,
Myriad
