But you are again just finding something after the fact and inventing an "instruction". For what you're saying to make any sense, there needs to be one of two things present in the hunt:
a) A pattern across ALL chapters that unambiguously works and is intended to be discovered through correlation. i.e. if the claim is that the first 2 keys match unencrypted questions, then every single chapter had better match this theory, otherwise it doesn't work.
or
b) An instruction somewhere that tells you what something means for chapter X. Nothing anywhere says "for chapter 1 (and only chapter 1), the location of the month of the archive article answering a question matches the location of the first key". In fact, that sort of obfuscation doesn't make any sense at all since the hunt gave us "THE FIRST TWO KEYS ARE 1,20" in big letters on the eagle eye.
Don't get my wrong, I'm not pointing this out to be mean... I want the answers as much as anyone. But any sort of clue solving has to be done logically and rationally. I think my biggest fear at this point is that the hunt is NOT logical or rational. My fear is that the people who made this hunt did throw in a hundred hints in the book, but not in a way that makes them rationally useful. I hope I am wrong, but there is little evidence to date to allay that fear.
I am all for finding (a) correlations across ALL chapters or (b) specific actionable instructions. To date, almost no across-chapter correlations have ever been found outside some very light correlations (such as "the cipher used for a chapter sometimes is correlated in some tangential manner to the silver eagle solution for that chapter"). And as for (b), we can find a lot of things that may or may not be intentional hints and tips in the book, but to date 100% of them have been found after solutions have been posted.
For example, in chapter 4 we have the text "Suddenly the QUESTION escapes me before I can grab it". A hint to use the questions right?
But.... then in Chapter 1 we have the text "I might have some more QUESTIONS for you". But questions were not where keys were in C1.
So, we have to conclude that the C4 question "hint" can't be intended, as C1 also has a similar reference and it was NOT a question. So even things that look like reliable hints can't be trusted because other chapters use the same hints but those hints don't amount to anything.