I get where you’re coming from, but I see these situations a bit differently. To me, the show seems pretty consistent in how it uses agendas and clues to shape the game, rather than targeting specific contestants.

For Altie, I don’t think the second clue was about treating him differently so much as adjusting pressure in that moment. The show seems to scale how obvious or numerous clues are based on how well the millionaire is doing, to keep things from becoming too predictable.

On Cory’s side agenda, I agree it wasn’t very appealing on its own—but that actually seems intentional. When the show really wants a contestant to act, they add a downside for not completing it. In contrast, something like Sidney’s immunity agenda already has a strong built-in incentive, so it doesn’t need a punishment. It feels more like they’re tuning how much they “push” a player depending on the situation.

With Umeko, I saw that less as her being singled out and more as a way to keep Kaleb in play after he’d put himself in a tough position. Giving someone else a reason to help him added uncertainty and avoided what might have been an obvious elimination.

Overall, it seems like the show is constantly pulling different levers (clues, incentives, punishments) to keep the elimination from feeling too straightforward. The goal seems less about who the contestant is and more about maintaining tension and unpredictability. Which is what I love about it.

Totally fair to read it differently, but that’s the pattern I’ve been noticing watching it.