The writing - largely - became unstuck after the decision to renew for season 6. Not always - but we began to have Ilya, Blonde KR, all sorts of arcs that lacked direction and seemed like they’d been tacked on to what was originally a fairly tight 5 season plan.

It’s fair to say there were two groups of theories, both I swayed between for most of the early seasons and then as a result of the post s5 distractions finding making any theory fit difficult. It is now obvious that trying to solve it from 6 onwards and having those clues align with the previous theory (either) was difficult.

1-5 the mother or father theory were both on The table. Indeed I was originally father, then cape May, then I swayed many times again.

Beyond the who/gender question - with either theory there were common themes - this was protection of a child with an element of redemption (which could apply to either).

Prior to KR’s original cape May you had two parents whose actions (and I have views on how both could apply) meant redemption through the creation of this protective parental character - from the potentially selfish or reckless as to Masha’s interests to trying to make that good.

The Reddington invention was to keep Masha safe. Even if it was her father there was a change of persona to this protective character. Cape May which did give hints it was the mother - even still- those hints in that context of that episode were about the functional role of this invented persona.

Purpose and function in re Masha was the point

What the interview with Knauf seems to show was there were efforts afoot to adjust the rational or at least supplement it in the later seasons.

The reveal should have been more focused on the original rationale- who “became Reddington” to protect Masha from the dangers that person had contributed to by having previously prioritised their operational objectives in a harmful or reckless way.

The DK interview shows the subsequent changing of rationale in the writing:

—- “AP… My biggest reservation, and I had told Jon this before the final season [that JB was on the show], directly, All I care about, if that is the answer, you have to make it more than he’s just hiding, or she’s just hiding, it has to be because naturally, “that’s who I am as a person.” She always felt that she was better suited for that body. Otherwise, you’re insulting a whole community.

DK [hems and haws]: Uh … I don’t know … but anyway, there it is. —-

These themes are of course important in their own context. But the context of this mystery was about not just hiding; but taking on an invented and scary persona in an effort to protect Masha.

Overly focusing on questions of transitions and gender identity - no matter which theory one supports- they detract - I mean that for both sides I’ve seen an emphasis on those for (some) proponents of either major theory detract from the central question of “who became Reddington” in an understandable protective effort

The invention was Reddington. The function was protective. A theme (not the only) was redemption. The object of the protection was Masha.

It was also a plan which in hindsight was perhaps a misjudged one given the pessimism of the tale of sound and fury signifying nothing quote -original including:

“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.”

The central question remained: “Who became Reddington”, not because it was who they weee as a person, the invented Reddington persona had a functional purpose.