Authorial intent is the act of, rather than looking at the story itself, you focus on the author. Why did they write this, why did they act this way. Thatās what I want to focus on, Scott Cawthon after the release of FNAF 4, and what that means for the story. Scott was, for lack of a better word, frustrated after FNAF 4. Think about the box, how he never gave us a concrete answer to what it was because no one got the complete story of the game. He gave MatPat the hint āwhy is little toy Chica missing her beak?ā Well, I have an answer to both of those, CC doesnāt matter! Heās not Golden Freddy, Cassidy is! And heās definitely not the Puppet, that title is Charlieās. So in the grant scheme of things, who is he? Well, heās the brother that Michael accidentally murdered. Thatās why Scott was so frustrated. He didnāt mean to tell us about CC, but rather about Michael. It was Michaelās backstory. This was Scott trying to tell us āthis is the boy you play as in the rest of the series, and this is why he spends over five nights at Freddyāsā. But, due to the lack of information at the time, no one understood. So he introduced William Afton as the Purple Guy in the books, then again in the games, and made his daughter the antag, as well as making another antag a representation of his wife. This game was supposed to make you connect the Aftonās to the protag of the series, make you realize that the protag is an Afton. But no one got it. So Scott threw his hands up and said āfine! Iāll just tell you!ā And gave us the cutscenes after the SL custom nights, which gave us more information about Michael than anything. Michael turning purple isnāt actually him turning into a rotten corpse (how could he get a job as a corpse? Even if Fazbear Entertainment is garbage, heās a corpse! Thatās wayyyyy past the line) but rather to connect him to William, to the Aftonās. He even shares the same VA as William! Scott basically threw in our faces that Michael was an Afton, and the kids in FNAF 4 were Aftons as well (think about the empty girlās room, which SL gives us an answer to), therefore Michael = Foxybro = MC. Then he finally closes it off with FNAF 6 (ah satiating FNAF 6 ending, I miss you), giving us Henryās line about his ābrave volunteerā wanting to die in the fire. And I think thatās what finally put the FNAF fandom in agreement about Michael (at least, the FNAF fandom canāt agree on much, so Scott still needed more confirmation in Fazbearās Frights since MatPat thought Michael was CC as a robot). I mentioned earlier the line āwhy is little toy Chica missing her beak?ā Sheās missing her beak because the cutscenes arenāt even from CCās POV, theyāre from Michaelās, how he remembers his little brother, and how he remembers himself. CC is, frankly, a little bit too much of a crybaby to be realistic. And yes, this is a game, so I might be looking to far into it, but CC never stops crying, even when the Fredbear plush tries to comfort him. And about the Fredbear plush, I donāt think itās William talking to him or a spirit, I think Michael saw CC with the plushie all the time, and interpreted it as an object of comfort for him, thatās why itās literally everywhere, Michael remembers CC bringing it with him everywhere. And how does Michael look back at himself? With nothing but hatred. He sees himself as the older brother who lives for nothing but torment (we donāt get any scenes of Michael being nice until CC is dying). And heās afraid of his younger self (think about how many YouTubers jumped at the Foxybro jumpscares). And the gameplay? Thatās William punishing Michael, and thatās why we see it in SL. So why is little toy Chica missing her beak? Because Michael Afton has already been Fritz Smith, and the image of Toy Chica without her beak is burned into his mind. I believe almost to complete certainty that the first concept of the box was something connecting FoxyBro to the FNAF protags.