Not everyone trusted the process. A local radio host called the refunds an admission that the entire bank was dishonest, and a small business owner threatened to move her payroll accounts unless Nathan could guarantee there were no other problems. A group of shareholders complained that the review costs would reduce earnings, while customers asked why the bank had been allowed to profit from the charges for so long. Nathan answered the questions without pretending the institution could make universal guarantees.
In a public statement approved by the board, Reed National acknowledged that an internal review had identified serious failures in the sale and documentation of optional account products. It described the customer review process, the independent contact options, and the steps taken to protect reporting employees. The bank did not disclose Doris's or Tyrone's private details. It also made clear that suspected violations would be referred to the relevant authorities as required, rather than promising punishment before the evidence had been independently assessed.
Douglas Crane's attorney sent a letter disputing the bank's interpretation of his messages and saying the regional approvals reflected ordinary management practices. Bradley Stone filed a grievance through the available employment process, arguing that the bank had singled him out for a culture it had rewarded. Both men were given channels to challenge the termination decisions, and the bank preserved the records for any resulting proceedings. The existence of those challenges did not make the verified customer losses disappear.
Nathan read the letters carefully. Some of what Bradley said about the incentive culture was true, even though it did not excuse telling Grace to lie or firing her when she refused. Douglas had built the region's reputation on sales targets Nathan's administration had once praised. If the bank treated their removal as the entire solution, it would be only a matter of time before a new manager learned to reach the same numbers using a different script.
That was why he asked Grace to help with a review of the account-opening process before she decided whether to join the new department. She spent four afternoons with compliance officers examining forms, listening to recorded training modules, and explaining how customers reacted when a teller spoke too quickly. The specialists knew the regulations better than she did. Grace knew the exact moment when a person's eyes glazed over because they were too embarrassed to admit they did not understand.
She learned quickly, but she did not always agree with the experts. One proposed disclosure was legally accurate and nearly impossible for an ordinary customer to follow. Grace read it aloud, stopped halfway through, and asked whether anyone in the room would understand it if they had just finished a ten-hour shift and were holding a crying child. The lawyer who had drafted it tried to explain why the language was necessary, then stopped and agreed to revise it.
The revised form separated the basic account from optional paid services. It identified costs in ordinary language and required a clear decision for each product. It also instructed employees to explain alternatives without steering customers through fear of rejection. A customer who declined optional services would no longer be marked as a lost sales opportunity in the teller's performance dashboard.