Victoria looked at the timeline.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Was the equipment ever independently retested after the changes?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "We have found no evidence of a complete independent retest."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Then the approval was based on an assessment that did not accurately reflect the original testing results."
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "That is our preliminary conclusion."
The director moved to the next slide.
It showed a list of financial transactions connected to Grant Defense Solutions.
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "We are also reviewing payments made to several consulting firms associated with individuals who participated in the procurement process."
Victoria studied the list.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Are these payments connected to the contract?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "Some appear to have been made shortly before or after key approval decisions. We have not yet determined whether they were legitimate consulting fees or improper payments."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Who received them?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "The records include a firm associated with Thomas Reed and another company linked to a former procurement adviser. We are examining the ownership structures."
Victoria leaned forward.
VICTORIA HAYES: "What about Colonel Ward?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "He has been placed on temporary administrative restriction pending the investigation. His workstation and official records have been secured."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Has he provided a statement?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "He has declined to answer questions until his legal representative is present."
VICTORIA HAYES: "And Grant?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "He has also requested legal representation. His company has been instructed to preserve all records relating to the contract, technical testing, and communications with procurement officials."
The director paused before continuing.
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "There is one additional development. The original warning message from Lawson was not the only warning received by the procurement office."
A new document appeared on the screen.
It was an email from an independent technical engineer who had participated in one of the early equipment trials.
The engineer had reported that the communications system experienced repeated failures under high interference conditions. The message had been sent to the procurement oversight office and copied to the project management team.
It had received no formal response.
VICTORIA HAYES: "When was this sent?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "Three weeks before the revised report was approved."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "So at least two technical officers raised concerns."
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "Yes. We are reviewing whether additional warnings were ignored."
Victoria looked at the screen.
The equipment had not failed because of one isolated testing problem. Multiple people had identified the same weaknesses. Their concerns had been documented, but the procurement process had continued as though the system had passed.
The implications were serious.
If the equipment had been deployed in operational environments, personnel could have relied on communication systems that were not capable of performing under the conditions for which they had been purchased.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Has the equipment been delivered to any operational units?"
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "A limited number of units have received initial batches for evaluation. Full deployment has not been completed."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Then every delivered unit must be identified. I want a temporary suspension of operational use until independent testing is complete."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "I agree."
INVESTIGATIVE DIRECTOR: "We will issue the recommendation today."
VICTORIA HAYES: "And the units must be informed that the suspension is a precautionary measure. Nobody should continue using the equipment simply because it has already been delivered."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Understood."
For the first time, Victoria felt the investigation was addressing the issue that had mattered from the beginning.
Not the embarrassment of Alexander Grant.
Not the reputation of the ceremony.
Not the pressure from senior officials.
The safety of the people who might have depended on that equipment.
***
Later that morning, an investigator informed Victoria that Alexander Grant had agreed to provide a formal statement.
His attorney had advised him that refusing to cooperate could create additional complications, especially after the conversation with Ward had been reported.
Victoria was not required to attend the interview, but General Mitchell invited her to observe from the adjacent room.
The interview began with questions about the ceremony.
INVESTIGATOR: "Mr. Grant, why did you approach the stage during Major General Hayes's speech?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I wanted to raise a concern about the procurement decision."
INVESTIGATOR: "Were you invited to speak?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "No."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did General Mitchell instruct you to remain in your seat?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "Yes."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did Major General Hayes ask you not to approach her?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "She told me to step back."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you grab her uniform?"
Grant looked toward his attorney.
MICHAEL TURNER: "My client will answer."
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I reached toward her because she was walking away from the discussion."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you make physical contact?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "Yes."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you grab her near the shoulder?"
Grant hesitated.
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I may have."
INVESTIGATOR: "The recording shows you taking hold of her uniform with both hands. Is that accurate?"
Grant's attorney shifted in his chair.
MICHAEL TURNER: "We would like to review the footage before answering questions about specific movements."