Chapter 76: Facts for Friday
The contract administrator cut my best sentence and Oliver's worst one with the same black line.
At Wednesday's recorded online briefing, seven booksellers waited behind numbered windows for a usable public answer.
The neutral administrator shared the FAQ redline live from North Quay's compliance account.
Every proposed sentence required a source that both sides could inspect at the permitted and equal level.
My opening said I had protected readers from Oliver's attempted seizure of our shared name.
The administrator struck “protected readers” and “seizure” before I finished defending them.
The missing second signature and frozen future use were documented facts supported by the shared licence.
My evaluation of Oliver's purpose was not necessary to explain either.
Oliver's draft said he had continued caring for readers while I blocked publication.
The same black line removed “caring” and “blocked publication” from Oliver's submitted paragraph.
Existing editions had continued selling, while future shared-name use required both approvals.
His claim about continuing care was an evaluation of himself, not a verifiable contract status.
The first approved answer used the sentence already tested in shops.
Any future use requires both creators' written approval; none has been given.
The second said the six existing editions remained available under their current agreements.
It did not suggest that deadlock had cancelled existing books, scheduled royalties or accurate contribution credit.
The third approved answer described Saltmere and Larkspur as independent new projects under separate contracts and names.
It did not call either a successor or compare private commercial performance.
I asked to add that the German audio line was under independent review.
The administrator opened the audit status beside my sentence.
OPEN — AMOUNT UNVERIFIED supported that neutral statement and nothing more.
No amount, accusation or conclusion entered the redline.
None entered the recorded bookseller briefing shared with all seven shops either.
The fourth approved answer said outstanding financial questions were being reviewed through the proper independent accounting process.
It disclosed no private bank figures, detailed licence terms, named fault or speculative financial loss.
Oliver asked to add that his old performance contribution remained recognised.
The administrator permitted a link to the existing jointly approved contribution summary, not a fresh self-description.
I received the same option for my drafting and structural contribution.
Neither of us could turn the neutral fact FAQ into a fresh campaign biography or moral judgment.
The seven booksellers watched the page become shorter and more useful.
One asked whether Pippa had duties to Marian Crowe.
The administrator cited the public Larkspur page: no successor status, duties or rights.
No confidential schedule or private relationship detail entered the answer.
At 11:43, the administrator displayed the clean one-page preview.
Both sides saw the same wording, links and planned Friday publication time.
The booksellers received that identical preview through the recorded briefing channel.
I approved the facts even though they removed the sentence most likely to travel online.
Oliver approved after his final adjective disappeared.
The administrator stored our drafts, source table, complete redline and clean preview together.
The recording preserved which cuts had applied to each side.
No one could later claim neutrality meant leaving both versions untouched.
It meant requiring the same kind of support for every public claim.
The meeting moved to publication logistics with eight minutes remaining.
Then Oliver's solicitor uploaded a formal fairness complaint.
It challenged the independent-shop directory used to replace the chain's 300-copy commitment.
The complaint alleged that Alistair's prior contact with me had produced unequal channel access.
An independent reviewer froze the twelve-shop credibility credit for a three-day review window.
By Thursday at 09:00, I had to upload the directory exactly as received.
The reviewer required its original file, full email headers and every transmission timestamp.
My helpful outsider had just become the next fact that could not rely on trust.