After you unlock the item drops in Berlin, the items are left there by Olivia. Same with Chongqing, using contacts Grey made in the Far East.
For Mendoza, after unlocking them, Diana left the items there.
The idea is, although you the player select them, Olivia and Diana left whatever they could in those spots and 47 just knows the way to best use them.
It was already established in Hitman 2 that 47 can get items smuggled in without the ICA as Sgail, Milton Fitzpatrick, Haven, were all unsactioned kills. The games UI makes mention of how the items are smuggled in, usually by a contact that Grey has on the inside or by Olivia.
Of course, this still shows 47 needing either a previously established connection with a destination (Olivia in Berlin, Diana in Mendoza) or using a different, non-ICA network, like Greyâs connections, for other locations (Isle of Sgail, New York, Haven, Dubai, Dartmoor, Chongqing).
So a future where itâs just 47 and Diana trying to, say, infiltrate a fashion show taking place in a museum with hundreds of people and press in attendance, making prior arrangements will be extremely difficult to the point of being impractical, if they donât build up some kind of network. So even if itâs not the ICA as we knew it, their own worldwide organization of paid murder still needs to be set up for them to resume what they do.
Is such a scenario really that âimpracticalâ though? Like yes, they will be building their own network and it wonât be the ICA.
Just because the ICA is gone doesnât mean itâs function within the Hitman universe canât be easily replaced. You either make the game about setting it up or the next game starts after a few years of 47 and Diana already doing her philanthropic murder thing together.
The ICA is gone but I just personally see it as a non issue from a functional standpoint.
Yeah, them making their own organization can be done. My main point being that it needs to be done, it canât just be the two of them and keep the series going like it has.
But, Iâm also bitter that it might not be the ICA, because I like the Agency, what it stands for, how it operates, and itâs fundamental place at the heart of the series. There was no real reason to get rid of it. Itâs insignia, itâs equipment, itâs secret-government-intelligence-operation-like nature; the ICA really was essentially a 3rd character, every bit as much a part of the series as 47 and Diana are. And as long as 47 and Diana need a network to do their jobs, considering all Iâve said here, and the utter meaninglessness in ditching the Agency to begin with⌠why not simply have them revive the ICA and go from there. Any perceived âflawsâ in the nature of the ICA can be fixed with the fact that it would now basically belong to Diana and 47, running Joe they want it to.
I think weâre in agreement that some network needs to be created. Personally Iâm not bitter but I can understand why a lot of people would be.
âWhy not simply revive the ICA and go from there?â
Honestly thatâs not without precedent would make sense with what we saw at the end of 3. Diana has in the past personally overseen the shutdown and re establishment of the ICA on at least one occasion, and in Untouchable we see that Providence (which Diana becomes the head of) has essentially absorbed various ICA assets. Could definitely see it brought back where Diana has unilateral control of the new agency as opposed to a board of directors.
The whole ârooting traitors out from the insideâ thing⌠Iâd say thatâs a pretty good reason. saying thereâs no real reason is not the same as âitâs a reason I disagree withâ; itâs still a good reason, you just happen to think itâs not. The ICA became unreliable to trust as it had been compromised and ultimately weaponised and abused by Providence. That needed to be torn down, and whistleblowing it was really the only way to keep the ICA off Olivia and 47 as they try to deal with Providence and Edwards (see Berlin where the ICA tracks Olivia and Greyâs nightclub base down, and got 13 agents there before 47 did).
As @Crazerot says, Diana, now offering services similar to that of the ICA will no doubt attract attention of those who want said services. The ICA is likely gonna stay dead; that name is also dead now. Maybe theyâll call their services D.C.C (Dianaâs Cleanup Crew) or something. There will always be an agency network, the assassin business would be hard to start without one; itâll just be by another name. And 47 (or whatever heâll end up naming himself) and Diana, will be the heads of it; uncorruptible heads more pertinently.
Allow me to clarify: when I said there was no real reason to get rid of it, I did not mean in-universe. I meant there was no reason for IOI to go that route in the story. There was no reason to make Berlin and Chongqing settings for a âbetrayalâ between 47 and ICA. They could easily have been made Providence targets, and in the lead up to the release of the game, thatâs what I thought they were going to be. The decision to make ICA an enemy in the middle of the war with Providence came out of nowhere and was completely unnecessary. In-universe, the reasoning is sound, although Iâm pretty sure they could have been held off long enough for 47 and Diana to take Providence down and then course-correct with ICA, but IOIâs decision to do it this way, I see no reason behind that that makes sense for the franchiseâs future.
In the end all narratives could have been made and worked well in-universe. If the writers wanted they could even have made Grey a betrayer. But I think the ICA actions in hitman 3 goes beyond just being interesting and making sense for the plot, the missions and the level.
I think the story of hitman 3 is not universe driven. It was not written to be about the world and its inner workings. The story is character driven, itâs about 47. So the narrative elements, the actions that happen and therefore the reactions taken by the protagonists are all made to focus on 47 and his character.
I think you should see the story in terms of protagonist and antagonist. As you know in narration both work on the same objective, the protagonist wants it to be realised, the antagonist doesnât.
Hitman 3 has three arcs in parallel with three pairs of prota/anta.
Each of them have the same theme of control against freedom. Three different kinds of freedoms (grey wants freedom from his past through revenge, 47 wants to be free from being just an instrument without any sentimental ties, Diana wants freedom for the world against providence).
The first two levels (Dubai and Dartmoor) are about Greyâs arc, and ends with the conclusion of his revenge and his death, as he has nothing more to accomplish (in character and in universe).
The third and fourth levels (Berlin and Chongqing) are about 47 arc. The issue is that 47 is by his essence a passive character, he takes orders and his objectives and thatâs it. If you are a writer, and have a passive protagonist, it means that the antagonist needs to start the arc.
And so arrives the ICA agents in Berlin. 47 for the first time becomes active in his story and makes his own objectives.
From this first narrative movement, 47âs arc cascades. After his injection in Hitman 2, he started to feel again (you can see him with a face of regret before the Isle of Sgail), but before he ignored it. Chongqing gives us as the secondary default start location a small talking 47, with empathy and feelings.
So he might be experiencing grief, and the way it was translated narratively was by having 47 litteraly taking the mantle of his brother in Berlin. And then taking his mantle metaphorically by reproducing his action and motivation in Chongqing. 47 is starting to grow as a person, he grieves a brother and takes to heart Greyâs lessons.
In addition the ICA is doing to 47 what providence did to Grey. To quote Grey in Dubai
âProvidence made me. And at the flick of a pen, Providence broke me. Iâm just returning the favor.â
So by parallel of their arcs (they, again, are brothers and had the same struggle in the âbefore timeâ - ie. the comic), the same happens. The trilogyâs story is about Greyâs return in 47 life and his influence on him. How 47 returns to his childhood and teenage goal of freedom (then from the Institute), first crushed by Ort-Meyer (this rediscovery was the main story arc of Hitman 2).
The writer wants to give 47 a liberation arc from just being a tool to use and disregard, so 47 does exactly that to the antagonist. He used the ICA for years for his craft and he now disregards them for himself. The ICA is in hitman 3 the representation of the immovable, growth stunned, flat 47. We discover in China that the ICA have already written him off, with research towards better artificial means. Itâs a classic man vs society tale, used to illustrate a man vs self story.
The level ends with 47 saying that
âmaybe it is time for a change.â
His arc is closed. And that was the point of the ICA betrayal story, I think. It was to make it personal. Thatâs also why you needed to use the ICA and not Providence, a personal arc needs a personal antagonist. It is necessary for the weight of the story.
The fifth and sixth levels (Mendoza and Carpathian Mountains) are mostly about Dianaâs arc. They are where she takes full control of the action.
But they also close 47âs arc in his personal space/his mind by closing his issues with his past with Diana. It also reinforces the influence of Grey by making him his conscience. Greyâs actions guide 47 in Chongqing, his character guides him in his coma.
To underline the whole theme and arc you even have a secret ending undoing everything accomplished by the character by taking the memory serum. Quite litteraly undoing everything as the following end cinematic is a return to the introduction of the first game, Codename 47.
And so 47 ends the story as a Free Man (â˘). And the ICA betrayal was necessary to start his arc and to give it its theme, substance, and essence.
His last action in the trilogy is to smile.
(and literally running towards Diana, they are just an absolute power couple, please IOI give us more of them)
And I think thatâs the narrative writers wanted to do. To quote Hakan Abrak in the announcement trailer :
âin HItman 3, 47 is back for his most intimate and professional contracts in his entire careerâ
If I may give my opinion, I think that no canon and forced continuity should (reasonnably) oppose a good story. Itâs the respect we owe to the writers, as long as it is upfront. Itâs what is fun : to be told a story !
Ps : I know you are relatively new to the forum, so you might not have seen this thread : Canon Clues - Updatable Topic. Any help is greatly appreciated SPOILERS
I think you might like it 
. Your thread is a great addition to it. It is good to see passion for the game, the universe and the story.
We know it isnât impossible to create our own contract agency, being the best assassin and the âbest handlerâ, weâd easily get tons of clients once they hear about us,
a guy in Mendoza talks about how he would need the services of someone to do what the ICA was doing (roughly)
and we even have Joanne Bayswater trying to get clients for her own agency,
Sure the ICA might come back, but the current route of being independent is a possibility, and a great one
Also, really great post and analysis @LandirtHome! 
Iâll get to some of the more recent posts later. Right now, Iâm trying to verify this. Please specify which soldiers at the back of the school talk about this.
I think @Luiluix means the backyard of the school, where you can have the dancing easter egg. But donât worry, I searched for it. Unfortunately I couldnât find it. I also looked in the rest of the school, in the ambassade basement, and a few other places. I was carefull to check for multiple triggers.
Nonetheless I found two references to the Paris kills. None of them are definitive.
The first one is in the briefing, you can see it on the news ticker. It just says that the fashion show had âscandalous deathsâ. Admittedly it could be a reference to the light rig, it fits well, but I doubt itâs that well fitting and is on purpose vague.
The second one is in the Shisha Cafe, where you can find a IAGO operative/model talking on the phone and telling us that Dalia Margolis was known to have been assassinated. If you are interested in dialogues, I found a youtube channel that compiles them. Not a lot of views in it but it could be interesting for you or others. It looks like a good ressource.
At best I think it could exclude the double assassination with the firework. But there is nothing indicative.
If I may enter the conversation about the light rig assassination. I consider it canonical. It is true that its representation in 47âs mind in Reflections could be a fever dream born from his mind always looking for opportunities and keeping inside even the ones he didnât do. But itâs not the most straightforward conclusion.
More importantly, the Hitman team at IO is obviously fond of this kill. Itâs the one they teased during the demo in 2016, it appears in multiple trailers, itâs the one kill that explicitly is represented in-game at the tail end of the trilogy.
And they have good reasons for that, the catwalk and light rig are the centerpiece of the Paris level, it lights up in front of you as the first âwowâ moment of the whole trilogy !
Itâs also just a rememberable cinematic kill that embodies the spirit of the Hitman games.
Even if itâs not fully explicit canon, we at least shouldnât dismiss it. We owe IO and the team that.
I also wish to add something about ânon target killâ. In the old canon, 47 cared as much as he could, but he was still professional about his objectives, they had priority. In the old games, every accidental kill was legitimate, no matter on whom or even if the target was amongst the victim. One of the most well known kills in blood money was breaking a suspended glass floored pool to make the target fall to his death, accompanied by some civilians. And you still retained Silent Assassin. (And all of that is without looking at what happens in the cinematics)
You can even still see this philosophy in the original ICA Base level in 2016. 47 explicitly killed the actor playing Jasper Knight (they added a line about a parachute only in Hitman 2) in what was then implied, now confirmed to be the canon kill. Even if we accept the fact that the actor now survive, 47 didnât know about the parachute beforehand.
no, I remembered that the description uses passive to avoid mentioning the who.
And thatâs funny: in Chinese version, it says âsomeoneâ left the item 
Considering that poison kills are considered âaccidentâ, then it might refer to the glass of wine you can poison Fernando with on the balcony. In terms of accidents, you can also dump Manuel´s unconscious body into the wine⌠tank? (I don´t know the proper name for it), thus killing him.
Personally with 47 and Diana effectively going into business together, they will in my opinion more or less create their own ICA in the next game.It will kind of remind me of Hitman: Contracts in a way as that game had Diana and 47 as the driving point of the game. The rest of the series has had more ICA influence.
Just my opinion of course. I suppose IOI will want to give players a fresh feel of the franchise in the next game, but at the same time keep it at its true roots.
Thatâs false.
She did just that, before she was recruited by Soders.
That being said, I do agree ICA was like a third character, an another pillar of the Hitman universe, but still. I donât think this is the ultimate end of itâŚ
If I may add the evidence. This is Independant Diana at 26. Sheâs in that world since the age of 16, went independant at the start of college.
Diana may be âindependentâ in that time period, but sheâs not doing it on her own. Sheâs very clearly talking to someone right there who is watching a target location for her and referencing a plan of attack coming in from a third person. She has people working for her, collecting information, probably paying some bribes, helping prepare to take down a target. Thatâs an organization, thatâs a network, thatâs Diana not doing everything on her own, precisely as I said. It may be a relatively small organization, it may not have an official designation, it clearly does not operate fast or efficiently like the ICA (which will be relevant to my next point), but it is an organized effort being coordinated with more operators than simply one handler and one hitman. That was half of my entire point, and the evidence youâve provided to show the contrary only helps to enforce it.
As I specifically said, while an arrangement of just Diana and 47 is possible, it removes the possibility of 47 taking the high profile hits he could expect from ICA on a regular basis, where heâd get a contract at least once a month on average, if not more often. Diana doing all the background work for him would not only be time-consuming in the extreme, but that also relies on word-of-mouth to even pass along the existence of their services to prospective clients, and then those clients getting that word back to them, assuming theyâve put out a means to contact them. With the ICA, something like a third of all the worldâs paid hits were channeled through them, ranging from people in high positions who have been made aware of them through their network of contacts, to lower level criminals putting out word that they want someone taken out and that word being passed along until itâs overheard by one of ICAâs prospectors who then run it up the chain of command. ICAâs global connections and lower-level feelers are what kept the business coming in.
Diana and 47 keeping it between just the two of them would leave them having to pursue open bounties or waiting for someone to be made aware of them being open for business to get word to them. Such a situation would happen far less frequently than with ICA for the big, international-stability-at-stake missions to come to them, and theyâd most often be left to do lower-level hits, like rival drug smugglers or corrupt police chiefs. The big contracts of government officials and mob bosses every few weeks that we see in these games would slow to a trickle without an organized network working for Diana to gather intel, pay bribes, remove evidence, leave equipment and escape vehicles, etc.
That was my point. Dianaâs earlier work was not just her and the trigger man, as clearly shown in that very image you provided, and assuming that operation was as small as it seems, and given the reference to months of work being put into the setup for a single hit, it only bolsters my point that a large, global setup is needed for 47 and Diana to continue to do their work as we have seen it in these games. Unless IOI is preparing for a total paradigm shift with the next entry (or a full reboot [NO!]), then the establishment of a large network will be required for 47 and Diana to carry on as they have. And as long as thatâs true, they might as well revive ICA.
Worked for Mark Faba (who was disavowed from MI5), and he managed to get several high-level contracts, including one with Kronstadt.
Thereâs a difference between low-level hits and personal, self-commissioned hits. Whereas the former is paid and the latter is solely personal preference. Low-level hits also donât exist, 47 would have a rate, and the client either can pay it or they canât.
Vigilantes donât kill for money, for starters. Also, if you really believe the entire series will die because itâs got a vigilante-esque theme now, then you need to look at the entire WoA trilogy from Whittleton Creek and after, because they literally left the agency, made a bunch of hits themselves based on the preference of political faction and personal choice (and not ICA-sanctioned hits), and the games still sold decently well.
While I donât mind reading other peopleâs perspectives on stories and games in general, itâs not exactly fair to doubt the writerâs ideas before youâve even seen them. You donât know if WoA is canon for the next game, and if it is, you donât even know what direction theyâre taking the game in.
The ICA was never a major character, it was a backdrop justification for linking the mission-based story together. As I said, 47 ditches the ICA before Whittleton Creek so it was completely dormant until Providence hired them in Berlin. Diana doesnât have to start her own agency, but youâre probably right to assume sheâll need help. I doubt they wouldâve dissolved the ICA if they didnât know what to do next, so itâs nothing close to a âgrave errorâ.
They may end up bringing it back like they have in the past, but unlike the prequels, this was a reboot and the gameplay may not have been the only aspect of the series they were willing to upend. I understand most of your points and some of them are fair, but Iâd recommend just waiting till you watch their vision unfold in the sequel.
You never know, when the next Hitman game arrives, Diana would have more than likely expanded her new agency effectively recreating the ICA but with a new name? After all there might indeed be a time jump and 47 and Diana could have been working for this new ICA/Agency for years since we last saw them in Hitman 3.
