SECURITY COMMANDER: "There is more. The original file contains an internal message from the testing supervisor."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Open it."
The message had been written by Peter Lawson.
It was dated several days before his resignation.
The subject line read: URGENT CONCERN REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM TEST RESULTS.
Victoria began reading.
Lawson had warned that the revised performance figures did not match the raw testing data. He had stated that several failed simulations had been excluded from the final summary without technical justification. He had also questioned whether the equipment had been tested under the same environmental conditions described in the revised report.
Most importantly, he had written that the proposed changes could create a misleading impression of operational reliability.
The final paragraph was particularly revealing.
Lawson had requested that the original testing records be preserved and that no deployment decision be made until an independent technical team had reviewed the results.
The message had been sent to Colonel Ward.
Ward had acknowledged receipt.
But the file contained no evidence that the concerns had been addressed.
Instead, a meeting had been arranged with Grant Defense Solutions.
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Ward received this warning before the revised report was approved."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Yes."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "And he authorized the archive transfer."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Which means he knew the original records existed."
The commander opened another file.
It was a technical presentation uploaded by Lawson during the same period. Several slides compared the original test results with the figures later used in the revised report.
The differences were not minor.
In some categories, the revised document described tests as successful even though the original logs recorded failures. In other cases, the revised report listed testing conditions that did not match the laboratory records.
Victoria studied the tables.
VICTORIA HAYES: "This isn't a disagreement about interpretation. These results were changed."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Can we establish who changed them?"
SECURITY COMMANDER: "The version history is being recovered."
A few moments later, a new file opened.
The document history contained multiple revisions.
The first version had been created by the technical evaluation team. The second had been modified by a procurement analyst. The third had been uploaded through an account associated with Colonel Ward's office.
But the fourth version was different.
It had been created using a temporary account.
The user name was not displayed in the standard record.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Can we identify the account owner?"
SECURITY COMMANDER: "We're checking the authorization registry."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "How many versions were changed?"
SECURITY COMMANDER: "Four major revisions. The final version removed several failure records and changed the overall assessment."
Victoria looked at the date.
The final revision had been uploaded less than twenty-four hours after the private technical meeting attended by Ward, Lawson, and Grant's representatives.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Preserve every version separately. I want a comparison report showing exactly what changed, when it changed, and which account made each modification."
SECURITY COMMANDER: "Understood."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "This is enough to justify a formal investigation into the procurement process."
VICTORIA HAYES: "It is enough to begin. We still need the people responsible to explain their actions."
Mitchell nodded.
He contacted the independent investigative authority and requested an emergency review of the recovered records.
The response was immediate.
A team would be assigned to take control of the procurement evidence, interview the individuals involved, and determine whether the altered assessment had been used to secure approval for the contract.
Victoria watched as the original testing file was transferred into a protected evidence repository.
For the first time since the ceremony began, she felt that the investigation had moved beyond suspicion.
There was now a documented record.
But the most important question remained unanswered.
Why had Peter Lawson helped move the original file if he had been the person who initially warned against the altered report?
***
Peter Lawson was located later that evening at a small hotel several miles from the event venue.
He was sitting alone in the lobby when two investigators approached him.
INVESTIGATOR: "Mr. Lawson?"
LAWSON: "Yes?"
INVESTIGATOR: "We need to speak with you about the Grant Defense Solutions procurement review."
Lawson's expression changed.
LAWSON: "I already provided everything I knew when I left the program."
INVESTIGATOR: "We have evidence that your temporary credential was used to access the original testing archive today."
LAWSON: "I don't know anything about that."
INVESTIGATOR: "The access records identify your credential."
LAWSON: "Then someone used it without my permission."
INVESTIGATOR: "We would like you to explain that."
Lawson looked toward the hotel entrance.
INVESTIGATOR: "Mr. Lawson, please remain here. We are not asking you to make any decisions without legal advice, but we do need to establish what happened."
Lawson slowly sat back down.
LAWSON: "I want an attorney."
INVESTIGATOR: "You are entitled to one."
The investigators arranged a formal interview.
At first, Lawson denied any involvement in the archive access. He claimed that he had left the evaluation program months earlier and had no reason to return to the records.