(Inspired by this book, I am drinking a gimlet that was - I think - poured with a very heavy hand. Or I'm an ABSOLUTE lightweight. Also a possibility.)
There is A+ dog content in this book. And also I think that mystery is probably an excellent genre for MRK to be writing in because of how methodical and meticulous it can be, which plays to her strengths.
There was so much about this book that I liked - The Westie, of COURSE, but also the science fictional creativity and the serious consideration of disability and a disabled heroine counting her spoons and how the future changes that calculus but does not change the need for it.
It's fascinating to me how MRK shows so clearly the operation of privilege in the mystery novel, but this work is not in any sense a critique of it. Merely a noting of it.
And also

while I am not a person who attempts to guess mysteries, I found this one to be a little sparing with the clues. I don't usually try to guess, but I do hold the standard of could I guess or, more precisely, could my extremely astute sister have guessed and, if the answer is no, I judge the book for not providing enough information or details.

The other thing that I find complicated about MRK as an author is that she is technically precise, but I often struggle to believe that her characters have deep interiority. It's not, for example, that I don't think that her characters are real, but more that her descriptions - especially those of desire - feel surface deep in a way that I can't explain. I've had this problem since her first Glamourist books and her research is impeccable and, with that, so much of the rounded depth of her characters just doesn't come through.
Which is clearly a me-problem and it's unfair to read her work and keep hoping she'll do something different and yet, as they say, hope springs eternal. And she wrote a fascinating mystery, just not one I'm entirely convinced is populated by people.