Nolan's retest request threatened more than a closing date. It threatened the story Preston had told about his own performance. If the acceptance method required improvement, someone might examine the earlier warnings. If they examined the earlier warnings, they would see reports forwarded to his office and budgets that never received approval. A public admission might not destroy the deal, but it would force the board to ask how a known verification concern survived for years without corrective action.
Preston's first solution had been to insist that Nolan sign. When the technician refused, the second solution came easily: characterize the refusal as indiscipline, remove him from the company, and replace him with someone willing to approve the report. The public firing had seemed useful because it would discourage colleagues from supporting the technician. Nolan would leave embarrassed and isolated, and any later complaint would sound like bitterness after dismissal.
Audrey's arrival had disrupted that plan at its most vulnerable moment. Now Preston needed to make Nolan's past warnings appear unofficial and technically unsupported, even though he knew they carried formal references and acknowledgment numbers. He called Graham Winslow and told him to gather documentation demonstrating a pattern of resistance to authority. "There must be years of complaints," he said. "Every troublesome employee leaves a trail. Find his."
Graham had served the company for seventeen years. He understood the personnel system well enough to know how a neutral fact could become an accusation through selective wording. A request for additional safety checks could be described as "challenging approved direction." A request to clarify a performance standard could become "reluctance to cooperate." If enough such phrases were grouped together, a conscientious employee might appear to be an obstacle to the work he had helped complete.
He opened Nolan's records with that expectation and found the opposite. The technician had submitted detailed requests through official channels, almost always with proposed solutions and respectful acknowledgments of cost. Other employees had thanked him for training them. A former supervisor described his patience as exceptional and wrote that he brought calm to difficult equipment failures. Graham searched for formal disciplinary action and found only the recent notes prepared during the consortium dispute.
He printed the documents and carried them to Preston's office. "These don't really support the summary," he said, setting the stack on the desk. "They're engineering requests. Some have review numbers. Two received quality-control support."
Preston glanced at the pages without lifting them. "Then phrase them as a pattern of challenging managerial decisions. We don't need a technical seminar in an employee file."
"But the original requests still exist. Auditors will see them."
Preston leaned back. "Graham, I don't believe you understand the seriousness of this. If the contract fails because Human Resources cannot establish the basis for a routine termination, people will ask whether you were fit to manage your department. It's a difficult market for men our age. How is the mortgage on that house in Evanston?"
Graham felt his stomach tighten. He and his wife had bought the house after years of saving; their youngest child was preparing for college, and their monthly expenses left little room for disaster. Preston had never visited the house, but he knew enough about the loan from an earlier conversation to turn the information into a warning. The words were delivered softly, as though they were concern from an old acquaintance.
"I'm not refusing to do my job," Graham said.
"Then do it properly. I want a written statement that Mercer's earlier ideas were informal opinions, not approved technical recommendations. Have it ready before the board meeting."