“Not in those words. One manager told me that email could make a simple issue look political. I took that as a warning.”
“Can you identify the manager?”
“Yes. But I don’t know whether they were acting on their own or repeating something they had heard.”
The interview lasted nearly two hours. When it ended, Samuel looked relieved and frightened at once.
“Will this help Evelyn?” he asked.
“It may help establish what the company knew and when,” Rachel replied. “We cannot promise what conclusions the evidence will support.”
Samuel nodded. He turned to Evelyn before leaving.
“I should have pushed harder.”
“So should I,” she said.
He looked surprised.
“I had more authority than you did,” Evelyn continued. “You raised questions within the limits of your role. I was the executive who could have demanded a clearer answer. I’m not saying that to excuse anyone else. I’m saying it because I don’t want us rewriting our own parts in this story.”
Samuel lowered his eyes, then nodded again.
After he left, Rachel reminded Evelyn that a witness’s uncertainty did not make the interview useless. The account helped map the way questions had been handled, but it did not establish that any person had deliberately concealed wrongdoing.
Evelyn added that distinction to her notes.
Evelyn thought of Hartwell. She had trusted the structure because it had stood for years. She had forgotten that stability was not proof that every joint remained secure.
She kept walking until the lights along the water came on.
The missing Northbridge schedules arrived at Bellamy Forensic Partners the following Tuesday.
They were stored in an archive package containing several hundred pages of supporting documentation, including vendor summaries, service descriptions, internal correspondence, and approval records.
Bellamy's team spent three days reviewing the material.
On the fourth morning, Rachel called Evelyn.
"The reviewers have identified a discrepancy that requires your attention," she said.
Evelyn gripped the phone.
"What kind of discrepancy?"
"One of the payment schedules refers to a service authorization that appears to have been amended after the original approval date."
"Does that mean someone changed it?"
"We don't know. The document metadata suggests that the file was revised, but revisions are normal. We need the version history and the original records before drawing conclusions."
"Can I see it?"
"Yes, through the review process. Bellamy wants to discuss the implications with us first."
They met that afternoon.
Bellamy displayed two versions of a consulting schedule. The first described work relating to feasibility studies for the waterfront redevelopment. The second included additional advisory services connected to asset consolidation.
The total amount remained unchanged.
"What is the significance?" Evelyn asked.
"The descriptions differ, and the revision occurred after the payment request was initiated," Bellamy explained. "That could reflect a legitimate amendment. It could also mean that the documentation was updated to match a decision already made."
"Can you tell which?"
"Not yet."
Rachel pointed to the approval section.
"Why does this version show Evelyn's account as the approving authority?"
"That is one of the questions under examination. The system record indicates that her account approved the request. It does not yet establish who initiated the amendment or who performed the approval action."
Evelyn leaned closer to the screen.
A note in the margin referenced a service authorization numbered NS-447.
She recognized the format.
During her time at Hartwell, service authorizations had been generated by the procurement department. Each one should have been linked to a contract or a written request from an authorized manager.
"Where is the authorization?" she asked.
Bellamy opened the document index.
"It was not included in the initial archive package."
"Could it be in another system?"
"Possibly. We have requested a search of the procurement archive."
Rachel turned to Evelyn.
"Do you remember approving this schedule?"
Evelyn studied the dates.
"I remember reviewing a feasibility-services request around that time. I don't remember this revised description."
"Can you say that with certainty?"
"I can say I don't remember it. I cannot say I never saw it."
Bellamy nodded.
"That distinction is important."
The meeting ended with a new set of requests to Hartwell. The forensic team wanted the original service authorization, all available document versions, the identity of the user who amended the schedule, and records showing how the approval workflow operated at the time.
Two days later, the procurement archive produced a result.
Service authorization NS-447 existed.
It had been created by Leonard Price's department and assigned to Northbridge Strategic Holdings. The description referred to preliminary strategic consulting, not the broader services listed in the revised schedule.