Chapter 75: Split Royalties, Separate Lives
The first royalty statement after the deadlock paid Oliver exactly what the internet said I had stolen back.
On Tuesday morning, North Quay's controlled finance portal opened the complete six-book statement at 09:00.
Each Blackwater title occupied its own auditable row under the existing rights and royalty schedule.
The reported net receipts and contractually permitted deductions flowed into the same 50/50 division as before the deadlock.
My name received one half.
Oliver's name received the other.
The future pen-name deadlock had not rewritten, suspended or confiscated any old-book royalty clause.
Neither my greater drafting share, his real contributions nor his public betrayal changed those signed payment instructions.
I checked the dated bank references against both remittance lines and the publisher's payment report.
The payments had been released on schedule and in full to our separate nominated accounts.
No old-book amount had been diverted to the Saltmere contract, return reserve or settlement negotiation.
The neutral contract administrator had verified the existing schedule and instructions but had not recalculated creative merit.
That deliberately limited office could execute the existing instructions, not invent a more satisfying new split.
My solicitor compared every statement row with the six title schedules and the prior-quarter method.
Every current royalty percentage matched.
The lawful result was considerably less emotionally satisfying than the online rumours about my financial revenge.
It was also the only current result the signed title documents and bank records supported.
I approved the statement as accurate for the listed period without waiving unrelated audit questions.
Then I opened the public FAQ draft attached to the finance review.
One proposed public sentence said the deadlock protected my share of Marian Crowe income from Oliver.
It could falsely imply that I had contractual power to delay, reduce or confiscate Oliver's half.
I replaced it with a narrower fact.
Existing editions continue under their current rights and royalty schedules.
The corrected sentence protected neither of us from accurate contribution language or later verified accounting correction.
It protected the actual payment record from becoming a weapon the shared licence did not provide me.
At the bottom of the statement, the German audio column remained blank again.
The unexplained blank had appeared across consecutive statements despite continuing public German catalogue availability.
It did not yet prove an amount, a missing payment, an accounting cause or misconduct by any named person.
It did justify a separate accounting query.
I registered the German audio line for independent audit with its catalogue references.
The targeted audit request asked for source statements, licence scope, permitted deductions and net-receipt reporting.
It supplied no estimated public figure.
North Quay marked the matter OPEN — AMOUNT UNVERIFIED.
I refused to hold, offset or delay Tuesday's otherwise correct payments while that separate question remained open.
Oliver's half left finance exactly as the existing schedules required.
Mine did too.
The German audio line entered a different evidence, professional-cost and accounting path with its own custodian.
Its eventual answer could correct an omission without changing old ownership or contribution percentages.
My accountant warned that the review would add cost before it produced a number.
I authorised that cost from my own professional account.
The statement, remittances, schedules and audit request entered separate folders with cross-references.
No public FAQ draft contained the private bank amounts, estimated loss or any unverified German figure.
At 15:22, finance closed the ordinary quarterly approval.
The internet could keep claiming I had frozen Oliver's money.
The bank record showed the opposite with considerably less drama.
I asked that the FAQ correct the principle without publishing either person's earnings.
The neutral administrator returned a meeting notice for Wednesday at 11:00.
It required both sides to submit factual support for every proposed public sentence.
My draft could mention the separate audit but no number that the audit had not found.
By eleven tomorrow, the best line in my answer would have to survive a neutral black pen.