When the facts became uncomfortable, did the leadership become more interested in understanding them—or more interested in silencing the person who had raised them?
He hoped Victor Hale would choose the first path.
But hope was not a substitute for due diligence.
Naomi received the request for a formal interview two days later.
The invitation came from the investors' legal advisers, not from Victor.
It proposed a meeting to clarify the methodology and scope of her preliminary report. The invitation explicitly stated that she was not being asked to disclose confidential company materials outside her contractual authority.
Naomi forwarded the invitation to Patricia Gomez, the attorney who had advised her earlier.
Patricia reviewed the request and recommended that Naomi confirm the scope in writing before agreeing.
Naomi followed the advice.
The meeting was scheduled for the following Tuesday.
It would take place in a conference room at the offices of an independent law firm.
Naomi spent the weekend preparing.
She did not attempt to reconstruct the company's entire financial model from memory. She did not speculate about Victor's motives or the internal discussions she had not witnessed.
Instead, she organized the documents she had been authorized to review and prepared a concise explanation of her process.
She would describe the assumptions she had examined.
She would explain why certain discrepancies mattered.
She would identify the limitations of her work.
And she would make clear which questions required answers from the company's engineers, lawyers, and finance team.
That was the extent of her responsibility.
On Monday evening, she called Patricia.
“I want to make sure I'm not missing anything.”
“You're not required to solve every problem in the project,” Patricia said. “You're required to explain what you reviewed and what you found.”
“I know.”
“Then stick to that. If they ask a question you cannot answer, say so. If they ask you to speculate about intent, decline. If they ask about documents you were not authorized to review, explain that limitation.”
Naomi smiled.
“You make it sound simple.”
“The principles are simple. The people are what make it difficult.”
After the call, Naomi placed her notes in a folder and set it beside her laptop.
She went to bed early.
For the first time in several days, she slept through the night.
The interview began at nine thirty on Tuesday morning.
Henry Lin attended in person, accompanied by David Chen and two advisers.
The investors' lawyer opened the meeting by explaining that the discussion was intended to clarify Naomi's preliminary assessment, not to conduct a full audit.
Naomi confirmed that she understood.
She then described how she had reviewed the available materials.
She had traced the principal financing assumptions through the model, compared the investor summary with the amended infrastructure agreement, and checked whether the revised environmental estimate had been incorporated into the main projections.
She had not independently verified the engineering estimate.
She had not performed a legal analysis of the guarantee.
She had not reviewed every contract associated with the project.
Those limitations were stated clearly in her report.
Henry listened without interruption.
When Naomi finished, he asked the first question.
“Based on the documents you reviewed, can you conclude that the project is financially unsound?”
“No,” Naomi said. “I cannot reach that conclusion from the preliminary review.”
“Can you conclude that the project is financially sound?”
“No. The unresolved issues prevent me from reaching that conclusion as well.”
Henry nodded.
“What would be required to determine the project's current position?”
“The main financial model needs to be reconciled with the updated environmental estimate. The guarantee provisions need to be interpreted in the context of the amended infrastructure agreement. The company should then test the project's financing requirements under reasonable delay and cost-overrun scenarios.”
The financial adviser wrote something down.
David Chen asked, “Could those issues be resolved without abandoning the project?”
“Yes.”
“Could they materially change the investment terms?”
“Yes.”
“What might that mean in practice?”
“It could mean a larger contingency reserve, revised financing arrangements, a change in the timing of the investment, or additional conditions before capital is released. The appropriate response would depend on the verified findings.”
Henry folded his hands.
“And what concerns you most?”
Naomi thought carefully before answering.
“The biggest concern is not that one estimate changed. Estimates change. The concern is that the investor-facing materials appear to have continued relying on assumptions that were still being revised internally. Until the model is reconciled, the investors may not have a complete picture of the project's current risk.”
The room was quiet.
Henry nodded slowly.
“Thank you.”
He did not ask whether Victor had behaved rudely toward her.
He did not ask whether she wanted revenge.
He did not ask whether she believed the company was dishonest.
He asked about the work.
Naomi appreciated that.
At the end of the interview, the investors' lawyer confirmed that Naomi's role was complete unless additional clarification was needed.
Henry stood and shook her hand.
“I appreciate your professionalism.”
“Thank you.”
“You may have made this process more difficult in the short term.”
Naomi gave a faint smile.
“I suspect that is true.”
“But difficulty is not always a bad thing.”
“No,” she said. “Sometimes it is a sign that an important question is finally being addressed.”
Henry smiled.
“I believe we agree on that.”
Naomi left the office feeling lighter than she had in weeks.
She had not solved the waterfront project.
She had not proved Victor guilty of anything.
She had not restored her consulting assignment.
But she had done what she could do honestly.