The university mathematician asked about his formal education and how recently he had studied particular methods. Owen answered directly, describing the doctoral program he did not attend and the independent study he had pursued afterward. She asked him to work through a proof on the board, then challenged one of his assumptions. Owen welcomed the correction, revised the argument, and explained why the new version was stronger.
After two hours Marcus closed his notebook. "I think we know enough to talk about a role," he said.
"You haven't asked whether I can keep up with the software," Owen replied.
"That's why I wouldn't offer you a software engineering position. We have engineers. What we need is someone who can help teams examine mathematical assumptions before those assumptions become code."
Priya added that she wanted to know whether Owen would be comfortable teaching groups of engineers who might at first consider him an outsider. He thought for a moment, then said teaching had always appealed to him more than being the smartest person in a room. The university adviser smiled at that answer and said she had been waiting all morning for somebody to express it so plainly.
The formal assessment recommended a consultancy focused on mathematical problem-solving, internal training, model review, and collaboration with engineering leads. It also recommended that Owen receive access to technical material only after completing the same security training required of other specialists. Marcus proposed a six-month agreement with an option to renew, a clear schedule, and compensation aligned with comparable professional consultants. Owen asked for a shorter initial trial period so that both sides could decide whether the arrangement actually worked.
Claire approved the modification. It was one of the first decisions she made about Owen that felt entirely ordinary, a small negotiation between someone offering a job and someone deciding whether to accept it. He was not being given a title to compensate for years of hardship; he was being hired to perform defined work at an appropriate rate. The distinction made both of them more comfortable.
The final report on Greg Dalton arrived the following Monday. It described repeated misuse of managerial authority, public criticism of support staff unrelated to performance, retaliatory comments after facilities raised concerns, and misleading descriptions of the whiteboard incident sent to senior leaders. The investigation did not suggest that every difficult correction he gave was abusive, nor did it deny that operations required high standards. It concluded that his pattern of conduct had damaged employee trust and that his response to the incident was inconsistent with the company's expectations for leadership.
Dalton contested the findings. He argued that management should not be reduced to keeping everyone comfortable, and he reminded the company of the contracts and targets he had helped deliver. The investigator acknowledged those accomplishments and explained that strong financial results did not negate serious conduct problems. Dalton was given the opportunity to respond in writing, and a small committee reviewed the record before recommending termination of his employment.