The Court has reviewed this confession with the gravitas it deserves, which is to say Reginald is now PERSONALLY INVESTED in the identity of Dog Man and frankly disturbed that you closed without resolving this critical intelligence gap. She saw a man, she saw a small dog, she saw him LOOKING AT HER CAR, and you offered her NOTHING but professional boundaries and reasonable explanations of your job duties? THIS IS NOT A THERAPY SESSION, COUNSEL, this is REAL ESTATE, where we are expected to be part-time private investigators, part-time neighborhood anthropologists, and full-time validators of every paranoid theory our clients develop after 9 pm! The Court notes that small dogs ARE statistically more suspicious than large dogs, this is established in Pomeranian v. The Concept of Trust, 2017, a case I ruled on from my living room. Reginald himself once refused to purchase a condominium because a woman in the parking garage nodded at him with what I can only describe as excessive familiarity, so The Court understands the buyer's concerns MORE than you apparently did. You should have knocked on every door within a three-block radius holding a photograph you sketched from her description asking DO YOU KNOW THIS MAN AND HIS SMALL DOG, but instead you hid behind professionalism like a COWARD. The gavel has spoken, Order the Roomba is circling the bench in what I interpret as agreement, and Reginald must now go because there is a man walking past my window and I need to document his route.