Indeed, I did leave that part out. Like I said, I was operating under the assumption that I was not the baddie.
If plasmid claimed that he had been blocked and NK'd you, it would clear bona and obviously you since you'd be dead. That just leaves me and Flamebirde as the other two suspects, and again, I was operating under the assumption that I was not the baddie. If plasmid NK'd Flamebirde instead, he would have to claim he was blocked, clearing bona, while I would clear you, leaving only me and plasmid as suspects. And again, if you operate under the assumption that I am not the baddie, then plasmid's cover is blown.
And yes, if bona blocks plasmid, then every time I wrote 2 v 1 for D2 in my original analysis should instead be read as 3 v 1. Also, the case of "Flamebirde baddie / Nana NK" would result in an identical scenario to the one above where "plasmid baddie / Nana NK", which is why I was saying it would implicate Flamebirde (as one of two suspects). Anyways, these are just minor updates.
It might seem strange that I formulated and shared an entire strategy based on the assumption that I wasn't the baddie. However, as it is literally the only assumption I've made in an otherwise foolproof strategy, to reject it is equivalent to saying that it is more likely for that assumption to be false than it is for an alternative strategy to fail. Intuitively, based on the fact that I am a role spy who can't be cleared without being killed, I don't think there would be another strategy that hinges on fewer assumptions (although you're welcome to try to come up with one). But even if there were, given that I claimed first without any counter-claims, I think I'm currently the least likely to be the baddie. And if I am, then I at least deserve to win for being ballsy.