Quote Originally Posted by shinta|hikari View Post
The bolded part didn't happen because Mimasaka supposedly predicted everything Souma did, from the oxtail, the extra meat, the improv, and the garnish. This means Souma's attempt at hiding anything failed.
Other than, you know, he didn't predict EVERYTHING Souma did...

Funny tidbit though that Copy Man boasted about knowing the improv and the extra meat AFTER Souma brought all those elements into play (not that it matters for our discussion, but interesting nonetheless).

Not predicting the final dish is kinda a big deal too.

But as also depicted, what Souma did was also not a full on improv either, so that's another aspect Copy Man failed to predict.

My proposal would be that Mimasaka thought it was garnish, but was in fact a completely new dish, and Souma would explain it as such. Even if Souma's final dish is essentially the same, in this scenario, Mimasaka made a mistake. That italicized part is critical in convincing the audience of the win.

And take note, I made this proposal way before we even began arguing about nonsense.
You're making all such proposals and such, but in essence we're still right where we started, that you don't want to accept that something that you'd be fine with had it occurred, when it actually did occur (albeit a different way) but you don't want to acknowledge it.