INVESTIGATOR: "The footage has been preserved and independently verified. You will have an opportunity to review it."
The investigator moved to another subject.
INVESTIGATOR: "Mr. Grant, what was the purpose of your communication with Colonel Ward on the evening of the ceremony?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "We discussed the procurement process."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you ask whether the original testing file had been deleted?"
Grant's expression tightened.
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I don't recall using those words."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you ask whether the file had been removed?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I was asking about the status of the records."
INVESTIGATOR: "Why were you concerned about the records?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "Because there were inaccurate documents circulating about my company."
INVESTIGATOR: "Were you aware that the original technical evaluation recommended rejecting your equipment pending corrective action?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I was aware that there were disagreements about the testing methodology."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you know the revised report removed several documented equipment failures?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I was not responsible for preparing that report."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you discuss the changes with Peter Lawson?"
Grant said nothing.
INVESTIGATOR: "Mr. Grant?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I spoke to him about the project. That doesn't mean I was involved in changing documents."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you offer him a consulting position?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "We discussed potential business opportunities."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you ask him whether he retained copies of the original testing data?"
Grant looked toward his attorney again.
MICHAEL TURNER: "We will need to review the specific evidence before responding."
The investigator placed a printed email on the table.
INVESTIGATOR: "This message was sent from your company's executive office to Thomas Reed. It refers to the need to secure the revised technical assessment before the next procurement review. Did you authorize this communication?"
Grant read the document.
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I receive hundreds of emails."
INVESTIGATOR: "Your executive assistant has confirmed that the message was sent at your direction."
Grant's attorney leaned closer and whispered something to him.
INVESTIGATOR: "We have additional records showing that your company representatives attended a private meeting with Colonel Ward and Peter Lawson before the revised report was submitted."
ALEXANDER GRANT: "That was a legitimate technical meeting."
INVESTIGATOR: "Why was the independent evaluation team excluded?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "You would have to ask the procurement office."
INVESTIGATOR: "Why were the original test results changed afterward?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I don't know."
INVESTIGATOR: "Did you know the equipment had failed emergency communication simulations?"
Grant's answer came more slowly.
ALEXANDER GRANT: "I knew there had been testing issues."
INVESTIGATOR: "Were those issues corrected?"
ALEXANDER GRANT: "Our engineers believed they had been."
INVESTIGATOR: "Was that belief supported by a complete independent retest?"
Grant looked down at the table.
He did not answer immediately.
His attorney requested a short break.
***
In the observation room, Victoria watched the interview through the glass.
General Mitchell stood beside her.
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "He is trying to separate himself from the technical report."
VICTORIA HAYES: "That was always going to be his position."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Do you think he knew how serious the failures were?"
VICTORIA HAYES: "I think the evidence will answer that question."
Mitchell looked at her.
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "You could have avoided all of this by approving the contract and moving on."
Victoria turned toward him.
VICTORIA HAYES: "And what would have happened when the equipment failed in the field?"
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "You know what would have happened."
VICTORIA HAYES: "People would have blamed the operators. They would have blamed the units. They would have blamed the people who trusted the system. But the original testing results would have shown that the failures were known before deployment."
Mitchell nodded.
VICTORIA HAYES: "The point of the review was never to make a contractor look bad. It was to make sure the equipment worked before people depended on it."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "I know."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Then that is what we need to remember throughout this investigation."
A member of the investigative team entered the observation room.
INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER: "General, Major General Hayes, we have a new development concerning the anonymous messages."
Victoria turned immediately.
VICTORIA HAYES: "What have you found?"
INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER: "The messages were sent through a temporary communication service. However, the sender used a network connection associated with a device registered to the procurement oversight building."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Can you identify the individual?"
INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER: "Not conclusively yet. But the device was assigned to a shared office used by several members of the procurement team."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Can you determine whether the messages were sent before or after the archive access?"
INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER: "The first message was sent shortly after the confrontation. The second followed several minutes later. The third was sent before the original archive file was accessed."
Victoria looked at the investigator.
VICTORIA HAYES: "And the final message?"
INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER: "It was sent after the deletion request was blocked."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "So the sender knew what was happening inside the archive system."
INVESTIGATIVE OFFICER: "That is possible."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Or the sender was watching the people who were trying to access it."