Welcome to Contain to Escape, Hardy Diagnostics’ very first interactive story!

Step into the lab, your skills are needed!
Your protocol: review our intern’s messy notebook, fix his errors in S.A.F.E.R. (Secure Automated Field Evaluation & Response), and escape before the system seals you in.

Each week, new data surfaces from the intern’s chaotic notebook, fresh assessments await, and more chances open to escape... and win!

This isn’t just an escape room – it’s a celebration made for you, the laboratory professionals whose expertise drives healthcare, research, and diagnostics forward every day.

How to Play

  • A new quiz will be posted Mondays at 9:00am (Pacific) from October 6 – 27.
  • Every correct answer = an entry into our weekly raffle for Hardy swag bags.
  • Grow your streak of correct answers all month — and one lucky lab will plate a piping-hot grand prize!
  • You can only submit one answer per week.

Example: If you play all 4 weeks and get 4 correct answers, your name goes into the weekly drawings AND you’ll have 4 tickets for the big prize at the end.

Answers will be posted here each Monday for the previous weeks quiz.

contain-to-escape
Watch the trailer
Click here to begin!

Raffle Prizes

Weekly prize:
Hardy Swag Bag

DSC_8358_Swag_Bag_Photo_Sept_2025_1536x1024_300dpi_max12

One winner per week, October 6–20

Each swag bag includes*:

  • Drawstring Bag
  • Lunch Bag
  • Hardy Plastic Sports Cup
  • Magnetic Whiteboard
  • MicroBuddyz™ MicroFiber Cloth
  • HardyCHROM™ Lanyard
  • (2) MicroBuddyz™ Scratch Pads
  • (2) HardyCHROM™ Post-It Note Pads
  • (2) Black Permanent Markers
  • (2) Blue Permanent Markers
  • (3) Hardy Pens
  • (4) MicroBuddyz™ Stickers
  • (4 ) HardyCHROM™ Plate Dividers
  • (6) Collectable HardyCHROM™ Pins

*Swag item colors and quantity are subject to change based on availability

Grand prize:
Laboratory Pizza Party

pizza-prize-order

One winner at the end of the month, announced on October 31

Pizza party details*:

For your entire laboratory! 

*Winner must be located in the continental United States

Start Game!

Game Engaged: Contain to Escape

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Epilogue

Chapter 1

Catalyst

Listen to the audio version:

It’s just after 7 p.m. on a Friday, and I’m still at the office, waiting for Kevin, the intern, to finish a few simple tests. I’m supposed to show him how to close up. He’ll be handling it solo once he’s officially hired and be in charge of activating our Secure Automated Field Evaluation & Response system, better known as S.A.F.E.R.

We’re one of the first labs using it. They called it experimental during orientation, code for finicky. We were told to follow protocol exactly. If something went wrong, the system would guide us.

S.A.F.E.R. controls everything: doors, badges, internal access, even the perimeter fencing. I’ve sat through its training slides a dozen times. A full shutdown, they said, only happens in response to a significant threat, so I feel confident Kevin can handle it once I show him the ropes.

The building is unnervingly quiet now, just the low hum of incubators and the uneven whine of the vents, like something breathing in the walls.

Outside, wind claws at the windows, and branches drag across the glass with a sound like fingernails searching for a way in.

I start to head for the lab to check on Kevin, make sure he’s wrapping up.
But then my computer screen flickers, and a warning message flashes to life:

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM ALERT

CONTAMINATION: DETECTED

SECURITY: ESCALATED

PERIMETER ACCESS: LOCKDOWN IMMINENT

Oh no. Not now.

If I don’t fix this fast, the decontamination team won’t arrive until Monday. Worse, if the system flags the event as unresolved, the lab stays sealed until someone is cleared to investigate.

That could mean days before anyone even shows up.

I grab my jacket and badge and start rushing down the hall.

He’s left his workspace in shambles, loops scattered across the surface, notebook gaping open, as if he dashed away mid‑experiment. He’s more spontaneous than organized, so I’m not shocked, but still, where did he disappear to?

I glance out the nearest window. His car is still in the lot, parked crooked like always. I call for him, but only silence answers.

I make for the exit, badge in hand, heart thudding. The scanner’s light flares, then cuts out. Before I can react, the lights flicker, and the door... doesn't open.

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM ALERT

ACCESS: DENIED

ALARM: ENGAGED

A sharp metallic clank echoes as the locks engage, followed by a heavy thud. The sliding doors slam shut with ominous finality, like the facility itself is drawing a line.

Then the alarm erupts.

A piercing, mechanical wail floods the corridor, ricocheting off steel and glass until it’s impossible to tell where it’s coming from. Red strobes flash in jagged bursts, bathing the hallway in violent light.

My chest tightens. Both our badges are required to disengage S.A.F.E.R.— a “safety net” against mistakes. Which means if Kevin’s gone, I’m trapped.

I force myself to breathe through the noise. His notebook might be the only clue left. If I retrace his steps, maybe I’ll learn what triggered the alert, and more importantly, how to get out.

Render Answer

Display Result

Catalase Test
Catalase check for Mycobacterium samples. Standard setup: M. kansasii (strong catalase control) and M. intracellulare (weak catalase control).

  • ✓ M. kansasii → expected (bubbling >45 mm foam column).
  • ✓ M. intracellulare → expected (bubbling <45 mm).

Procedure:
Peroxide added first, then labeled tubes. Reaction observed after 30 minutes.

Results:
Data looks off. M. intracellulare foamed all the way up the tube.

  • M. kansasii barely reacted.
  • Possibly mixed up controls after fumbling the tubes earlier.

Multiple choice question:
What steps should be taken to verify the results and properly deactivate the alarm?

  1. Since intracellulare showed strong bubbling, it may have had an unexpected reaction — record M. intracellulare = More than 45mm of bubbles as observed.
  2. The test shows that kansasii had weak bubbling — it may be a non-reactive strain. Record M. kansasii = Less than 45mm of bubbles to match the data.
  3. Kevin likely mislabeled the tubes after adding H₂O₂ — record kansasii = More than 45mm of bubbles to reflect the expected catalase activity.
  4. Excess foaming suggests contamination or procedural error — results are unreliable. Discard the test and rerun it with fresh controls.

I see it now, Kevin mixed up the controls after fumbling the tubes. My fingers fly over the console, correcting the data as quickly as I can.

✅ Correct Answer: C.
Kevin’s notes suggest he added peroxide before labeling the tubes, then got confused when the weak control bubbled strongly. This indicates a label mix-up, and the correct fix is to record the expected result, not the swapped one. M. kansasii = >45mm.

❌ Why the Other Answers Are Wrong:

A. Incorrect: intracellulare should not bubble strongly. Accepting this result would be validating a known error.

B. Incorrect: kansasii is biologically a strong catalase producer, so this misidentifies it.

D. Incorrect: While the results are confusing, they can be salvaged through careful interpretation. There's no need to discard the test.

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM RESPONSE

DATA: VERIFYING [1/4]

ALARM: DISENGAGED

SECURITY: ESCALATED

PERIMETER ACCESS: RESTRICTED

 A shaky breath escapes me. If the catalase test went wrong, what else did Kevin overlook? And where is he now?

A faint, persistent hum drifts down the hallway. I step forward, notebook in hand, aware that every second counts. This is going to be a long night if I don’t move quickly.

Chapter 2

Screens and Shadows

Listen to the audio version:

My footsteps echo off the walls and dissolve into the darkness, leaving behind a hollow sense of isolation. Then, beneath it, I caught something else. A low, subtle vibration. Small. Repeating. Deliberate.

Out of the corner of my eye, a faint glow caught my attention.

Kevin’s phone, face-down on the floor just outside the lab. The hum thrummed through the floor, pulsating in my chest as I bent to pick it up.

It was still warm, like it had only just slipped from his hand. Cracked and forgotten, it flickered weakly under the dim hallway light.

The lock screen lit with a cascade of missed calls and unread texts. The same name filled the screen again and again, Maya, her messages growing more desperate with each line.

From: Maya ❤️, Sent: 6:45 p.m. “When are you out of work?”
From: Maya ❤️, Sent: 7:08 p.m. “Kev? Hello…”
From: Maya ❤️, Sent: 7:23 p.m. “Is everything okay??”

The buzzing stops, leaving an unnerving silence that fills the space like thick smoke. It presses in on me, suffocating, as if time has gone still, waiting.

Kevin hasn’t left, and he hasn’t answered Maya’s texts. It’s like he’s vanished, yet somehow, he’s still here, somewhere.

I spin, scanning the shadowed hallway, each corner darker than the last. The silence is broken only by the flickering lights, too slow, too synchronized, as if someone’s controlling them. I step into the Calibration Lab, half-expecting Kevin, but find only an unfinished test left on the counter.

Render Answer

Display Result

Colony Counting 

  • Colony count for Coliforms and E. coli using CompactDry™ EC. Standard setup: Coliforms should show as pink colonies, E. coli as purple.
  • ✓ Coliforms → expected (pink colonies).
  • ✓ E. coli → expected (purple colonies).


Results:

  • Data looks inconsistent. Some colonies appear both pink and purple, making differentiation difficult.
  • Plates are smudged with thick, heavy colonies mixed with thin, scattered ones.
  • Possibly rushed inoculation or mishandling of plates leading to inconsistent results.

Multiple Choice Question:

The colony count data for the CompactDry™ EC plates appears unclear. What factors might have contributed to the discrepancies in the results?

  1. Kevin didn’t differentiate between the colors of E. coli and coliform colonies, leading to confusion in the results.
  2. Kevin used an old version of the CompactDry™ Reader™, which causes smudging of the plate and difficulty in seeing the colonies clearly.
  3. The plates were improperly positioned in the CompactDry™ Reader™, resulting in uneven readings and confusion between purple and pink colonies.
  4. Kevin added too much sample to the plates, leading to thick colonies that overlapped with thinner ones, making counting difficult.

I quickly go through the data, recognizing that the confusion in colony count isn’t just a fluke. Kevin’s rushed approach has led to these errors. I adjust the results, carefully checking the colony colors.

✅ Correct Answer: A.

Kevin didn't properly differentiate between the pink coliform colonies and the purple E. coli colonies during the counting process. This led to difficulty in telling the colonies apart and skewed the results.

❌ Why the Other Answers Are Wrong:

B. Incorrect: The CompactDry™ Reader™ wasn’t the problem here, smudging of the plate was likely a result of poor technique or handling, not the reader itself.

C. Incorrect: Though improper plate positioning could cause some issues, this wasn’t the primary cause of the confusion in Kevin’s results.

D. Incorrect: While the sample might have been too concentrated, causing thicker colonies, the key issue was Kevin’s difficulty in distinguishing colony colors, not colony size.

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM RESPONSE

DATA: VERIFYING [2/4]
SECURITY: PARTIAL RELEASE
PERIMETER ACCESS: MICRO ANALYSIS LAB - UNLOCKED

The words blinked on the console. S.A.F.E.R. accepted the corrections, but the knot in my chest didn’t loosen. Its logic was too clean, too literal: data in, access out. Human error wasn’t an error to S.A.F.E.R., it was a threat.

The corridor quaked with a hollow crash. A chair? A doorframe? The echo carried like someone was throwing furniture down the hall. Then came the footsteps, heavy, measured, unmistakably human.

A chill crawled up my spine. My gaze snapped to the Micro Analysis Lab as the doors slid open on their own.
Could he be in there?

Chapter 3

Echoes of the Forgotten

Listen to the audio version:

I slowly step into the Micro Analysis Lab. Each step feels heavier than the last, the air thick, as though the lab itself resists my entry.

My eyes scan the disarray, deepening my unease. Chairs lie overturned, pushed aside in haste. Torn and crumpled papers are scattered across the floor. Some clenched tightly, others drifting in the weak draft of the incubator fan. The room feels frozen in time, caught between chaos and stillness.

Then my gaze snaps to the console.

My chest constricts. Coffee stains snake across the console, dark rivulets seeping between the keys. The acrid tang of burnt circuitry hangs in the air, twisting my stomach. The screen doesn’t just flicker, it spasms. It’s like the system’s not just reacting, it’s watching.
I take a step closer, my breath shallow. But what I see next freezes me in place.

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM ALERT:

OVERRIDE INPUT CODE: 085252

USER VERIFICATION: FAILED

SECURITY STATUS: ESCALATING

The words smear into digital static, but not before I catch the final line:

UNAUTHORIZED USER DETECTED

The green text sears across the screen, glaring, accusatory, like the machine has fixed its gaze on me.

The low hum of the consoles deepens, a shaking that crawls up through the floor and into my chest, swelling with my rising panic. I force it down, steadying my hands as I crack open Kevin’s notebook, pages filled with frantic, unraveling scrawl.

Render Answer

Display Result

  • Surface Sampling:
    TSA with Lecithin & TweenÂŽ contact plates. Standard setup: agar should be pressed flat against the surface, with the lid removed for accuracy.
  • ✓ Agar Appearance → Dryish agar, might still be effective?
  • ✓ Attempted twisting for more coverage. Results? Uncertain.
  • ✓ Using the lid for faster sampling (no extra disinfecting required).

Results:

  • The agar shows signs of inconsistency, potentially compromising sample integrity.
  • Attempting to maximize coverage may have interfered with proper sample collection technique.
  • Rushed handling and deviations from standard procedure likely affected data reliability.

Multiple Choice Question:

How should TSA contact plates with Lecithin & TweenÂŽ be used for surface sampling to ensure accurate data submission in the system?

  1. Press the closed plate (lid on) against the surface to avoid contamination.
  2. Twist the agar gently against the surface to maximize recovery.
  3. Remove the lid, press the agar surface flat against the test area without sliding/twisting, then replace the lid.
  4. Crack the agar slightly so it molds to uneven surfaces.

He didn’t follow the full procedure, just took shortcuts, leaving it all in his notes. My fingers fly over the sticky console, correcting the data to verify another failed test.

✅ Correct Answer: C.

The lid must be removed, the agar pressed flat without sliding or twisting, then replaced. Kevin’s methods compromised everything. The samples, the data, they’re unreliable.

❌ Why the Others Are Wrong:

A. Incorrect: The lid blocks contact—no actual surface sampling.

B. Incorrect: Twisting risks smearing or spreading contaminants unnaturally.

D. Incorrect: A dried or cracked agar plate is invalid; it can't be trusted for accurate recovery.

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM RESPONSE

DATA: VERIFYING [3/4]

CONTAMINATION: PARTIAL

CONTAINMENT SECURITY: UNAUTHORIZED USER DETECTED

PERIMETER ACCESS: NEXUS - UNLOCKED

For a fleeting moment, I almost believe it’s over, that all I need is Kevin’s badge and this nightmare will end.

Then the hum cuts out. The silence that follows is worse than the alarms, pressing in heavy and absolute.

A thunderous thud breaks it. Then another. Each slam lands like a breath held too long, drifting like a phantom current, and threading its way through nerve and bone.

My fingers clamp down on Kevin’s notebook, knuckles aching, but I can’t move. I barely breathe as I turn toward the source. The door to the Control Room ahead... is starting to rattle.

Chapter 4

Errors in the System

Listen to the audio version:

The Control Room door looms ahead, its red warning light pulsing like a heartbeat. Every thud rings through the hall, sharp and persistent. Something's wrong. I can feel it in the air, thick with tension and the promise of disaster.

BANG!

The door jolts in its frame under the impact. I strain my ears, waiting for the voice I hope will come.

I whisper into the stillness. "Kevin?"

A low murmur breaks through the metal door, frantic and desperate: "—chairs—burns—wrong door—help—"

My stomach flips. “Kevin! What happened?”

His voice cracks through, embarrassed. “…I rubbed my eye.”

I blink in disbelief. "You what?"

He sighs, the sound thick with guilt. “I was running TSA plates, one slipped, so I pressed harder. The lid was still on. The plate cracked, agar smeared. I didn’t want to flag it, so I wiped it with my glove... then rubbed my face.”

My head spins. “You contaminated yourself.”

“It gets worse! I tried to get to the eyewash, but there were chairs everywhere. I tripped, the whole stack fell. Alarms went off. Thought I was heading to the front office, but... nope. Ended up in the control room. First time locking up. Zero stars.”

I press my forehead to the cold door, a mix of disbelief and frustration bubbling inside. “So, the lockdown... is because you chose not to wear your PPE?”

Kevin sighs dramatically. “Yeah. And now SAFER probably thinks I’m a terrorist.”

I can’t help it. A laugh bursts from my chest, sharp and a little desperate. Kevin, fumbling through safety protocols like a bad horror-movie lab tech.

“Can you let me out, or is this my life now? Because... yeah, I really screwed up.” His voice wavers, guilt clear in every word.

I approach the console, eyes scanning the screen.

Render Answer

Display Result

The terminal pings again, the screen flashing:

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM RESPONSE

INCIDENT LOG: REQUIRED

“Lucky for you,” I mutter, “I’ve got your diary of chaos right here.”

Kevin groans from the other side. “Please, don’t call it that.”

Multiple Choice Question:

Kevin cracked a TSA plate, smeared agar onto his glove, and rubbed his eye before tripping and delaying his trip to the eyewash station. After the incident, which of the following would be the most appropriate first step when completing the incident report?

  1. Record only the part about rubbing his eye, since the broken plate is minor.
  2. Document every step, including the broken plate, glove contact, eye exposure, and delay in decontamination.
  3. Wait until the supervisor asks for details before filing the report to avoid overcomplicating things.
  4. File the incident as contamination of the plate only, leaving out the eyewash delay since no serious harm occurred.

✅ Correct Answer: B.

An incident report should capture the entire sequence of events, even those that seem minor. Recording all steps ensures proper root-cause analysis, accountability, and prevention planning. A and D seem tempting “shortcuts,” but they ignore critical context, and C delays reporting altogether.

❌ Why the Other Answers Are Wrong:

A. Incorrect: A brief summary may overlook critical details that could prevent future incidents and compromise safety protocols.

C. Incorrect: Delaying the report undermines the importance of timely documentation. Immediate reporting ensures any necessary follow-up actions are taken promptly.

D. Incorrect: Ignoring the incident or downplaying its significance puts others at risk and violates lab safety standards. All incidents, regardless of scale, should be reported accurately.

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM RESPONSE

DATA: VERIFYING [4/4] SECURITY: RELEASED

PERIMETER ACCESS: RESTORED


The Control Room door light flickers green. Metal grinds as the lock finally lets go.

Kevin stumbles out. His hair’s a mess, like he’s been caught outside in the storm, and his eyes are red-rimmed and puffy.

“You’re not going unsupervised again anytime soon,” I say, exasperated. “Here—your phone. You might want to check in with Maya before she puts out a missing-persons report.”

He meets my gaze, apologetic. “I really outdid myself tonight. I swear, no more shortcuts in the lab. Ever.”

I breathe deep, silently rooting for him to mean it. “Let’s get your eyes flushed and get out of here before you manage to trigger something else.”

Once his eyes are clear, we head for the exit.

In sync, we swipe our badges.

The lock snarls, slow, mechanical, a quiet surrender. Then, with a final shudder, it releases.

Cool night air meets us. Rain taps softly on the pavement, steady and unignorable.

We made it. We’re out.

And just like that my phone vibrates.
A text message.

From: S.A.F.E.R.

Escaped Variables

Kevin’s face drains of color as he reads the message on my phone:

S.A.F.E.R. SYSTEM ALERT

 

CONTAMINATION: SOURCE IDENTIFIED

SURVEILLANCE: INITIATED

CORRECTIVE ACTION: ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

 

I turn to him slowly. “Is there something you’re not telling me?”

The question lands heavy. My fingers tighten around the phone, its glow casting pale light across Kevin’s face.

He winces, digging through the haze of memory. “Okay… don’t freak out. I spilled coffee on the console while trying to wipe my eyes. Everything was burning. I panicked. The screen flashed and some random numbers popped up. I think I hit enter by accident... I didn’t mean to. I don’t know what it did.”

From deep inside the facility, something rattles.

The sound crawls through the walls. Then it shifts into a wet, dragging squelch. Something alive. Moving.

I went still, every nerve strung taut. The way Kevin’s mishandlings kept snowballing through the night, it feels less like simple misfortune and more like the system had… overreacted. As if S.A.F.E.R. had just been waiting for the smallest excuse to keep us inside.
A glow bled through the doorframe, swelling and twisting until it almost resembled an eye. Watching.

“The lockdown…” I whispered, the thought clawing its way up before I could stop it. “What if it wasn’t about trapping us at all? What if it was… clearing a path to let something out?”

The words stuck in my throat, heavier than I wanted to believe. Because if I was right, we hadn’t just stumbled into the system’s net, we’d given it permission.

And now, whatever it had been waiting to release… was moving.

"Contain to Escape" Winners

Winners

Weekly Winners

Weekly Hardy Swag Bag Winners:

  • Week 1: Stacie S.
  • Week 2: Danielle A.
  • Week 3: Merah Z.
  • Week 4: Jamie D.

Grand Prize Winner

Grand Prize Pizza Party Winner: Danielle A.

Contain to Escape is complete… for now.

Your quick thinking reflects the same persistence, precision, and vital behind-the-scenes work you bring to healthcare, research, and diagnostics every day. It’s your dedication that keeps the unseen from becoming the unthinkable. Until the next trial, stay prepared.