Some dispute the authenticity of this second clause, and surmise its insertion by a later hand, perhaps by way of pressing the attribution of this Writing to the Last One. This imputation of chicanery is itself suspect, and not only for being inane and redundant: yes, it is true that anybody familiar with the Archives will have no trouble making the association with the Last One here, with or without the explicit arraignment of the ghosts. However, there is no telling where in the many stories of the Archives such an anybody might *begin* to gain this level familiarity, and so it is always best to assume that what may be already well known to oneself is not *necessarily* so to anyone else.