Arcana Unleashed: Deadfall - Eastern Pyarados Trail content issue

In the DndBeyond edition as of this date, the following implies that Omina is maintaining concentration on two Fly spells.

"The human Red Wizard is Omina (Medium, Neutral Evil Mage), who has cast the Fly spell on herself. The goliath warrior with her is Garos (Medium, Neutral Evil Berserker Commander), Omina’s Thayan knight, on whom the wizard has cast the Fly spell using a Spell Scroll. "

A mage can cast Fly as one of their abilities but it does not specify in the Monster Manual entry if that spell can be upcast to include a second creature, unlike fireball which explicitly says it is at 4th level.  The only way that both Omina and Garos could be under one casting would be if the Spell Scroll is explicitly at 4th level.  Then the text should be more like:

"The human Red Wizard Omina (Medium, Neutral Evil Mage) has cast the Fly spell on herself and her Thayan knight (the goliath warrior Garos, Medium, Neutral Evil Berserker Commander) using a Spell Scroll @4th level."

 Monster abilities, including spellcasting, don't necessarily need to follow the same rules that PC abilities do.

However, they should follow some rules - written in the creature description or elsewhere.  Nowhere that I've found says that one Red Wizard Omina, can concentrate on two spells at once.

Quote from OdoTheArmyWinner >>

However, they should follow some rules - written in the creature description or elsewhere.  Nowhere that I've found says that one Red Wizard Omina, can concentrate on two spells at once.

Except for the paragraph you quoted, which implicitly says exactly that.

My point is that if an adventure says that a monster or NPC can do something that a PC normally wouldn't be able to do, then it can do that thing, because it says so. (This is part of the broader "specific beats general" architecture of D&D rules.) If you want to modify it to something like your example to justify it, that's totally fine.

That is an interesting interpretation.  It does not explicitly state that she can concentrate on two spells it is merely implied that this occurs solely because the text says so.  To me that is weasel wording - whether by laziness or ignorance - especially when a rules conforming option is so close at hand, and liberally used elsewhere in this very adventure.  She has a scroll with Fly which would allow her to cast it on herself and the knight if it were at 4th level, thus conforming to the one concentration spell at a time.  Tactically, it is a better option for her anyway in that such would also give her back the ability to cast fly again out of her limited spell resources.

I guess what I'm really saying is, is an implied situation adequate enough to fall under the "specific beats general" clause mentioned?  Given that Merriam-Webster defines specific as "clearly defined, exact, or relating to one particular thing rather than a general category" as well as being an antonym of implicit, I disagree with your logic.