He objected that narrowing the inquiry would conceal the larger truth.
Nora said a larger claim was not made stronger by refusing to examine its parts.
Calvin left angrily, taking his briefcase with him.
The encounter unsettled Nora because she knew how easily frustration could become distrust after years of unanswered questions.
She called Jasmine later and asked whether she had handled the conversation poorly.
Jasmine said the committee had a duty to listen, but listening did not require validating every accusation.
Several days later, Calvin returned with a more focused request concerning a repair that had been recorded as completed before a contractor had received the necessary parts.
This time he brought dated receipts and a photograph of the worksite.
Nora thanked him for the concrete information and explained that the engineer would need to review the dates.
Calvin did not become friendly, but he agreed to wait for an answer.
The review eventually found that the recorded completion date referred to an initial temporary repair rather than the full replacement Calvin had expected.
The company summary had been confusing, but the records did not support his broader accusation.
Calvin accepted the correction reluctantly and asked that the ambiguity be noted in the public archive.
Nora agreed because accuracy was not reserved for evidence that made powerful people look guilty.
Chapter 11G: Elise’s Former Supervisor
An elderly woman named Dr. Margaret Keene called Claire after seeing Elise’s photograph in a newspaper.
She had supervised a neighboring research team during the years when Elise worked for Whitmore Industries.
Margaret said she had not known about the accusations made against Elise until long after the resignation.
She wanted to describe the colleague she remembered before other people reduced Elise to a victim in a corporate scandal.
Nora met her at a quiet tea room with Aaron present to document the interview.
Margaret remembered Elise arguing about experimental design and staying late to repeat tests that produced inconsistent results.
She said Elise could be stubborn, impatient, and unusually hard on people who treated technical work carelessly.
Nora smiled because her mother had also been impatient with sloppy homework and unfinished chores.
Margaret described a conference presentation where Elise challenged a senior scientist who had confused a short-term observation with a long-term prediction.
The senior scientist had been offended, but Elise had defended her conclusion by showing the data behind it.
Nora asked whether the story could be verified through conference records.
Margaret produced an old printed program with Elise’s name and the title of her presentation.
