"I don't want to replace one unaccountable executive with an unaccountable investor," Mariah said. "My firm will have rights to protect the money it provides, but those rights need transparent limits. This company should answer to its legal obligations, its shareholders, its workers, and the institutions that depend on its products." Susan Martinez asked what would happen if the software problems proved more expensive than projected. Mariah answered that they would have to revise the budget honestly, even if it hurt the investors' expected return. Pretending a problem had disappeared because a term sheet was signed would be exactly the error they were trying to stop repeating.
Dr. Celia Navarro joined the discussion remotely at Vivian's invitation, representing a group of customer hospitals willing to advise on the recovery plan. She described the clinical consequences of the flawed update and the workarounds hospital employees had been forced to maintain. She did not ask the board to guarantee that every defect would be repaired immediately; she asked for a published service timetable, accountable technical leadership, and reliable escalation procedures. Graham committed to restoring emergency support coverage and authorizing an independent safety review of the software. Mariah insisted those commitments be written into the initial funding conditions rather than relegated to a reassuring press statement.
By late afternoon, the board had adopted the framework for a formal ethics and employee accountability office reporting directly to an independent board committee. The new office would have authority to investigate management complaints, review retaliation allegations, refer appropriate matters to outside counsel, and report on patterns rather than isolated cases. Employees would have confidential channels for reporting concerns without passing through the manager they might be reporting. The company would also begin designing a worker advisory structure that gave employees a voice in safety, staffing, and governance matters without pretending that an advisory committee could replace legal employment protections.
Mariah raised Talia's name. The directors had heard her testimony, seen the termination chronology, and understood that any credible reform required taking the retaliation complaint seriously. Vivian proposed reinstatement, back pay review, and protection against further retaliation while an independent committee examined the circumstances of her dismissal. Mariah supported that step, then asked that Talia be considered for leadership in the new ethics office. Vivian worried, reasonably, that an assistant who had witnessed misconduct might need experienced investigators and employment counsel around her to run such an operation safely.
"Then give her the resources," Mariah said. "Don't pretend bravery means she has to know every procedure on the first day. What she understands is what employees experience when procedures are used against them. That knowledge belongs at the leadership table."
After a discussion of qualifications, responsibilities, and oversight, the board approved an acting vice president position for ethics and employee accountability, with Talia appointed subject to a formal role assessment and supported by independent legal and compliance professionals. It was an extraordinary opportunity, but not a title handed out simply because a wealthy investor had pointed to someone she liked. Talia would have to build a department capable of withstanding scrutiny from the people it investigated.