"Can the report be made public?" Evelyn asked.
"Not in its current form. It contains confidential company information, witness statements, and material that could affect the ongoing review."
"What can they say?"
"The board can acknowledge that the review has identified procedural weaknesses and that it has not established your responsibility for the disputed approvals. Whether it does so publicly is a decision for the company."
Evelyn considered the answer.
"Will Adrian agree?"
"I don't know."
That afternoon, Margaret Ellis called Evelyn directly.
She explained that the board was reviewing both the financial transactions and the process used to remove her from her position.
"I want you to understand that the preliminary findings are not a declaration of innocence or wrongdoing," Margaret said. "They identify questions that remain unresolved."
"I understand."
"The committee also recognizes that the announcement of your departure created a public impression that responsibility had already been established."
"That impression has damaged my reputation."
"Yes," Margaret said quietly. "It has."
The admission was brief, but Evelyn heard the weight behind it.
Margaret continued.
"The board will consider whether a clarification is appropriate once the review has progressed further. We also intend to examine our internal controls and the way executive-level concerns are handled."
"Will you examine the decision to remove me?"
"Yes."
"Even if the board concludes that the financial questions were legitimate?"
"Yes. A legitimate concern does not automatically justify every action taken in response to it."
Evelyn was silent.
For months, Adrian had insisted that the possibility of a financial problem justified her immediate removal. The board was now acknowledging that even a genuine concern required a fair process.
It was the principle Evelyn had wanted someone to recognize from the beginning.
"Thank you," she said.
When the call ended, she sat at the desk for a long time.
She did not feel triumphant.
The report had not cleared her name. It had not established who had approved the disputed payment or whether the Northbridge consulting charges were justified.
But it had changed the conversation.
The question was no longer simply whether Evelyn had failed in her responsibilities.
The board was also asking whether the people who had accused her had fulfilled theirs.
For the first time, accountability was moving in more than one direction.
The breakthrough came from an external accounting firm that had worked on the Northbridge transaction.
The firm had been engaged to reconcile certain consulting costs before the restructuring was finalized. Its records included a reconciliation worksheet that had not been part of Hartwell's original document production.
The worksheet showed that several consulting charges had been allocated across three development projects.
The amounts matched the totals in the disputed schedule, but the supporting references were inconsistent. Some charges linked to identifiable work products. Others referred only to broad categories such as strategic coordination, asset review, and transaction support.
The worksheet also contained a note indicating that part of the consulting total had been reallocated from one project to another after an internal review.
The change did not necessarily indicate improper conduct. Companies routinely allocate shared expenses across projects when the underlying services benefit more than one asset.
The problem was that the supporting documentation did not clearly explain the basis for every allocation.
Bellamy asked the external accounting firm to explain the worksheet.
Its representatives said they had been given the revised schedule by Hartwell's finance department and had relied on the descriptions provided. They had not independently verified every consulting service.
The firm supplied its correspondence with Leonard's team.
One email stood out.
A member of the external team had asked why the Northbridge schedule contained services that did not appear in the original authorization.
Leonard's department had replied that the schedule reflected the final scope agreed by management.
The external firm had accepted the explanation, subject to later reconciliation.
That later reconciliation had never been fully completed before Evelyn's removal.
When Rachel explained the discovery, Evelyn felt the familiar mixture of anger and caution.
"So the money was moved between projects without enough documentation."
"Some costs were reallocated, and the basis for certain allocations is not adequately supported in the records we have," Rachel said. "That is what we can say at this stage."
"Where did the money go?"
"The payments went to the consulting entities listed in the records. We have evidence that some services were provided. We do not yet have enough information to determine whether every charge was justified or whether the allocations accurately reflected the work."
"Could it be fraud?"