The room went quiet. Preston did not lose his composure. He was too experienced for that, and too good at the business to make a public show of disappointment while the client was still watching. He nodded and said the decision was understandable if the project required a unique source. Then he began asking questions, and I want to give him credit for the quality of them because that's how this story remains true to the difficulty of what Maren faced.
He asked whether a two-person operation had the production capacity to supply the proposed interior on a commercial timeline. He asked what drying protocol would govern slabs of unusual thickness and how the material would be conditioned for installation near the coast. He asked whether the salvage records met the documentation requirements the project hoped to satisfy. He asked whether the finished pieces could meet specified tolerances and finish performance under daily use, not merely look beautiful in exhibition lighting. He asked what would happen if a critical slab cracked or a subcontractor failed to deliver on time.
Those were fair questions, and Maren knew it. If she'd ignored them, a contract could have been the beginning of her shop's end. She opened the binder and answered from the records. She showed the original source file, the transport documentation, the moisture history, the written conditioning plan, the finish samples, the subcontractor commitments, and the milestones. She explained which jobs she could perform in-house and which she would buy from specialists whose capabilities she'd already confirmed. When Preston asked whether she had sufficient insurance, she turned to the certificate and the proposed project-specific coverage.
He moved carefully through the potential weaknesses. The coastal conditions would create material movement; what allowance was built into the design? She showed the details prepared with the project in mind and offered to coordinate the final specification with the architect and contractor. One slab could fail testing; what replaced it? She showed how the cut schedule retained alternative regions of the trunk and which design elements could be altered without sacrificing the central concept. The schedule could slip; what notice would the contractor receive? She showed the agreed checkpoints and proposed reporting intervals, not an unsupported promise that nothing would ever go wrong.
Elena asked whether Maren had the cash reserves to carry a commission before milestone payments. That question bothered Maren more than any of Preston's because she knew the honest answer depended on the contract structure. She said she couldn't finance the entire job on speculative credit, and she wouldn't claim otherwise. A reasonable advance against documented mobilization, progress payments tied to verified work, and a contingency agreed in advance could allow her to deliver without placing her ordinary business in jeopardy. She asked that the contract reflect actual production risks rather than assume an industrial supplier's balance sheet.
The contractor's project manager made a note. A large vendor might not have asked for that structure, but a project could be safer with a smaller specialist if the payment schedule and reporting requirements were honest. They discussed inspections, access to the remaining log, and what would happen if the client's