Henry returned to the other guests.
Naomi stood by the window for a moment, looking out at the lights along the waterfront.
The proposed development would change the neighborhood if it proceeded. It could create jobs, expand housing, and bring new businesses to the area. It could also burden the project with costs that would eventually affect investors, contractors, residents, and taxpayers.
The decision mattered.
She had no desire to destroy the project.
She had no desire to save it either.
She wanted the people making the decision to understand what they were choosing.
That was all.
The final consulting agreement arrived the following morning.
Naomi read it at her kitchen table.
This version included a clearer scope of work and an explicit requirement that material findings be shared with the investment committee. The company could protect confidential information, but it could not suppress a relevant conclusion solely because the conclusion was unfavorable.
There were limits.
The agreement did not give Naomi unrestricted access to every document in the company. It did not make her an auditor, and it did not authorize her to disclose confidential information to the public.
But it gave her enough independence to consider the assignment.
She signed.
Then she called Richard.
“I've signed the agreement.”
“Thank you. I'll arrange access to the materials.”
“I want to be clear about the timeline. I won't be able to certify the entire project in a few days.”
“Understood.”
“I can provide a preliminary assessment of the specific issues we discussed. A complete evaluation will take longer.”
“That's reasonable.”
“And if I find something that requires a qualified legal or engineering opinion, I'll identify it rather than pretending I can answer the question myself.”
Richard gave a quiet laugh.
“I suspect that will be one of the reasons Victor finds you difficult.”
“I'm sorry to hear that.”
“No, you're not.”
“No,” Naomi admitted. “I'm not.”
Richard promised to send the first document package that afternoon.
Before ending the call, Naomi asked one final question.
“Has the company already conducted an independent review of the amended financing structure?”
There was a pause.
“We have had several internal reviews.”
“That isn't what I asked.”
Richard sighed.
“No. We have not commissioned a fully independent review of the amended structure.”
“Why not?”
“I don't know that I can answer that question without discussing internal decisions.”
“Understood.”
But the answer troubled her.
The company was preparing to accept a major investment, and the investors had raised concerns about the financing amendment. Yet no independent review had been commissioned.
That might be a matter of timing.
It might also be a warning.
Naomi wrote it down.
The documents arrived at 4:40 p.m.
There were more than six hundred pages.
Naomi opened the files one by one, checking the index against the document list. Several files were marked confidential. Others contained spreadsheets with formulas, notes, and references to supporting schedules.
She created a folder for each category.
Financing.
Construction.
Infrastructure.
Environmental costs.
Sales projections.
Guarantees.
She did not begin by searching for evidence of wrongdoing.
She began by understanding how the project was supposed to work.
The proposed development had three major sources of financing.
The first was equity from the developer and its existing partners.
The second was a construction loan tied to specific milestones.
The third was a proposed investment from the Shanghai group.
The project also relied on a separate infrastructure arrangement intended to cover improvements necessary to support the development.
The infrastructure agreement was central.
Without it, certain portions of the project could not proceed according to the published schedule.
Naomi traced the financing assumptions through the spreadsheets.
The numbers were complicated, but the logic was familiar.
If construction began on time, costs remained close to the estimates, and the first residential units were sold within the projected period, the project could generate an attractive return.
If construction was delayed, financing costs would increase.
If environmental remediation exceeded the budget, the contingency reserve could be depleted.
If residential sales were slower than expected, the company might need additional capital.
None of those risks was unusual for a development of this scale.
The question was whether the model accounted for them adequately.
At 7:12 p.m., Naomi found the first discrepancy.
The public financial summary listed the infrastructure guarantee as a source of protection against certain delay-related costs.
The internal model treated the guarantee differently.
In the internal version, the guarantee became effective only after a set of conditions had been satisfied. One condition depended on a milestone that could not be completed until the infrastructure agreement was finalized.
The amendment changed the timing of that milestone.
That change might be manageable.
But the summary presented to investors did not clearly explain it.
Naomi checked the document history.
The summary had been prepared after the amendment.
She leaned back.
This was not merely a difference between old and new documents.
Someone had prepared a summary that failed to reflect an important change in the underlying arrangement.
She opened the amendment again.
The wording was dense, but the implication was clear enough to justify a formal question.
If the infrastructure agreement were delayed, the guarantee might not become effective when the public summary implied it would.
That could leave the project exposed to additional costs during a period when financing was already under pressure.
Naomi did not know whether the risk was large enough to threaten the project.
She needed more information.
She also needed to understand who had prepared the summary and whether the omission had been corrected elsewhere.