Hint position of Washed Away is wrong

In order to locate the Washed Away secret discovery, having found nothing in the large lake near Espren, I resorted to laborious, exhaustive point-tracking around Auburn and the Roughworks to plot a chart of the area that was Near the discovery to find its location. Doing so pointed me to a nondescript yard behind a house, and despite searching both the yard and the house thoroughly I did not find the Discovery. I then asked Espren where it was and they said it was at the windchimes, which was correct.

I'm fairly sure the Discovery's location should be marked as the windchimes, not the skeleton in the back. Exactness is required.

Furthermore, I think the Discovery should be renamed. "Washed Away" doesn't describe anything about it; "Solace in Pain" describes Zhiraok's feelings that are uncovered in that Discovery, "Remains of the Cursed" is an accurate description of what you find in that Discovery, and "A Croaking Cryptid" is similarly exact. But "Washed Away" is a turn of phrase that happens to be arbitrarily used in the Discovery's description; there's no water theme at all present within the Discovery, and if you were searching for such a theme you'd actively be led away from where the Discovery is. It should be renamed to be something to do with the starving safehouse or with the windchimes.

 

I agree with your first point.
As for your second, consider rereading all of the logs/scrolls, you may have missed something within, or missed a few scrolls themselves ;)

 

the discovery is literally about

Spoiler

how the Auburn Forest was destroyed in a flood after the assassination of Sovereign Xima, which was performed in retaliation to the destruction of a sacred site to the people of Fruma.

did you not read any of the notes??

 

I read the notes. Apparently not all of them, or I forgot something. I can't check them because I'm on a train, solving a murder.

 

Okay, reread all the notes I could find. Assuming I missed none: they mention "swept away", and elsewhere it's mentioned that Auburn was flooded, but it isn't mentioned whether the assassination succeeded nor does the discovery in itself state that there was indeed a flood.

 

the author didn't say something explicitly and only very very strongly alluded to it?? shame on them.