Chapter 78: Cleared by the Same List
The same list had reached both desks; only one of us had started dialling before lunch.
On Friday morning, the independent reviewer opened the signed final channel report in North Quay's compliance briefing room.
The attachment hashes, public release and gateway times matched across both distribution desks.
No private directory version, advance delivery or exclusive shop note appeared anywhere in the evidence chain.
The remaining question concerned the twelve buyers' own decisions.
Each shop had entered through North Quay's ordinary portal with separate commitment evidence.
None listed Alistair as an introducer or intermediary.
The reviewer had obtained direct confirmations through ordinary channels without asking either author team to contact them.
All twelve said they had chosen after reading the same public facts pack and briefing terms.
My team's earlier calls had accelerated action, not changed the material available.
The signed report found no unequal directory access, hidden version or private introduction.
It restored the twelve-shop credibility value to Saltmere's channel record.
The 300-copy provisional allocation retained its twelve separately evidenced commercial bases.
No stock moved because the authorised run had not yet reached warehouse receipt.
The reviewer then addressed the risk that had made the complaint plausible.
Alistair knew me professionally and had once given Saltmere a recorded commercial diagnosis.
Equal delivery this time did not erase that continuing appearance of preference.
He joined the briefing only to confirm a new written limitation.
His independent press could publish public directories and general channel information available equally to both projects.
It could not directly introduce buyers, tailor shop lists or route private opportunities to either team.
The written limitation preserved useful public information and removed personalised introductions and channel advocacy.
I accepted it without asking for a final round of introductions.
Oliver's solicitor accepted the review conclusion and retained the right to challenge future evidence.
The formal complaint closed without labelling either project, author team or bookseller dishonest.
At 11:18, the neutral contract administrator opened the approved FAQ for publication.
It stated the shared pen name still required both creators' written approval for future use.
It stated that the six existing editions continued under their current agreements.
It identified Saltmere and Larkspur as separate new projects, not successors.
It said financial questions followed a separate accounting process.
No unverified German audio amount or private bank figure appeared.
The administrator published the page with its source links and version timestamp.
Seven booksellers who had paused their orders during the public confusion received the same link.
Their status changes arrived through the ordinary order system, not through Alistair.
One by one, the seven paused rows returned to ACTIVE.
Their restored orders changed sell-in confidence without rewriting the authorised print quantity.
The FAQ gave shop staff a usable answer that neither praised me nor excused Oliver.
It also gave Pippa an accurate public boundary around her separate work.
I downloaded the published version and the channel review conclusion.
The evidence now supported both my shop record and Alistair's reduced role.
The cost was losing the person most likely to make a warm private introduction.
Future shops would receive a public list and whatever case I could make myself.
At 15:04, the final frozen credibility marker disappeared from Saltmere's dashboard.
Distribution confirmed the twelve commitments and seven restored orders remained in the current plan.
Then my personal finance alert appeared beside the commercial notices.
The moving agent required my deposit by Monday afternoon.
The national bookseller tour required its display-material payment from the same accessible account.
Both charges were legitimate; the available balance could cover only one without disputed shared funds.
The shop review had protected my distribution route.
It had not separated my new-book budget from the cost of leaving my marriage.
On Monday, the house and the tour would compete on the same property schedule.