Victoria recognized the name from the administrative records.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Was she involved in changing the report?"
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Not directly. But she had access to the version history and noticed that the original testing file had been moved. She also saw the deletion request being prepared."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Why didn't she report it through official channels?"
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "She says she had already attempted to raise concerns. Her supervisor told her the file movement had been authorized and that she should not interfere."
VICTORIA HAYES: "So she sent the messages to me."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Yes."
Victoria considered the information.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Why didn't she identify herself?"
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "She was afraid of losing her position. She believed that someone inside the office was monitoring her communications."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Did she provide evidence?"
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "She gave investigators copies of internal messages showing that the archive was being prepared for deletion. She also provided a record of a conversation in which her supervisor instructed her to remove an earlier access notification from the administrative log."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Was that supervisor Colonel Ward?"
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "No. It was a senior procurement administrator named James Holloway."
Victoria looked toward the empty stage.
The investigation was revealing another layer of the process. Ward had approved the revised report, Lawson had moved the original file, Grant's company had pressured the technical team, and administrative employees had been instructed to conceal records.
There were more people involved than she had initially expected.
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "Carter has agreed to cooperate fully."
VICTORIA HAYES: "Make sure she is protected from retaliation."
GENERAL ROBERT MITCHELL: "That has been arranged."
Victoria placed the medal back inside its case.
VICTORIA HAYES: "Then we keep going."
***
The full technical reassessment began the following week.
An independent team was assembled from specialists who had not participated in the original procurement process. They received the equipment, the original testing logs, and the complete version history of the revised report.
The results confirmed the concerns raised months earlier.
The communications system did not consistently maintain a stable connection under several required operating conditions. Encryption synchronization could become unreliable after repeated signal interruptions. Emergency transmissions could be delayed when the system was exposed to interference levels that were expected in realistic field environments.
The equipment was not ready for operational deployment.
The independent team also identified discrepancies between the performance claims made by Grant Defense Solutions and the results recorded during the original trials.
Some of the claims had been based on testing conducted under controlled conditions that did not represent the environments in which military personnel would actually use the equipment.
Other claims could not be reproduced.
The technical report concluded that the system required substantial redesign and a complete new evaluation before it could be considered for future procurement.
The contract was formally suspended.
The company was required to provide an explanation for the discrepancies and return all restricted technical materials held outside the authorized procurement process.
For the first time, the official record reflected what the original testing team had reported.
The equipment had failed.
And the failures had been known.
***
The legal investigation continued over the following months.
Colonel Ward's authorization records, correspondence, and meeting notes were examined in detail. Investigators found that he had received repeated warnings about the equipment but had continued to support the revised assessment.
The evidence showed that he had authorized the movement of the original testing file into a restricted archive and had approved temporary access for Peter Lawson.
Ward maintained that he had acted on professional advice and had believed the revised assessment was legitimate.
However, his explanation was contradicted by messages showing that he had been informed of the unresolved technical failures before signing the approval.
Thomas Reed's communications with Grant Defense Solutions also became part of the investigation. Several messages showed that he had encouraged former evaluation personnel to support the revised report and had discussed consulting opportunities with people who possessed knowledge of the original testing process.
Peter Lawson's testimony helped investigators reconstruct the sequence of events.
He explained how the original testing results had been challenged, how the revised report had been prepared, and how he had been pressured to move the original files.
He also confirmed that Grant had personally asked him whether he retained copies of the original data.
The independent investigators concluded that the procurement process had been compromised by unauthorized document changes, undisclosed communications, and attempts to restrict access to material technical evidence.
The legal authorities reviewed the findings and determined which individuals would face formal proceedings under the applicable rules and laws.
Grant Defense Solutions lost its approval to participate in the procurement program while the review remained active. Several of its senior executives were required to provide additional records and testimony.