Chapter 43: Her Own Words
Both document sleeves contained a file marked FINAL.
They could not both describe the same final version.
The custodian opened the BEFORE sleeve at the comparison desk. Leah's attorney joined by audio, not as a medical witness, but to authenticate what her client had received.
The custodian first verified the sleeve against counsel's transmission record. The copy came from Leah's retained papers, not Sterling's current archive. That did not make every statement inside true. It established whose copy we were examining and why it was permitted to enter.
The first document was the participant risk summary Leah had signed before the incident. Its cover carried FINAL in the title. The footer ended at Page 8 of 8.
The custodian displayed only fields allowed by the matrix: title, delivery date, signature status, page numbering, and version label. Every medical field remained masked.
Then she opened the AFTER sleeve.
It contained the explanation Sterling sent after the incident, with another participant risk summary enclosed. That summary also carried FINAL.
Its footer ended at Page 10 of 10.
The version code was different.
The custodian aligned the two cover pages beneath a camera. The titles matched. The final labels matched. The page totals and version fields did not. She covered every remaining line before anyone could read past the consent boundary.
Celeste's counsel objected through the secure line. "Different pagination does not establish a substantive change."
"No one has said it does," Rhea replied.
"Then the contents should be unmasked so Sterling can explain the difference."
Leah's attorney answered. "My client has not authorized a content review today."
"You are asking us to accept selected evidence."
"I am authorizing receipt facts. You may answer those facts."
The custodian recorded the narrow comparison: two documents bearing the same final designation, delivered at different times, with different page counts and version codes.
Then Leah's attorney read three sentences her client had authorized for this purpose.
"I received the eight-page document before I agreed to participate. Sterling sent me the ten-page document after the incident as part of its explanation. I was not given the ten-page document before."
Her words did not tell us what caused the incident.
They established what Sterling had placed in her hands.
For five years, the company's public account treated its final paperwork as a single stable record. Leah's copies showed at least two final versions reached the same recipient on opposite sides of the event.
Nathan asked whether Leah could have received an intermediate communication that explained the difference.
Her attorney answered within the matrix. "My client has authorized the company-contact log for review. She has not authorized speculation about communications Sterling has not identified."
The custodian checked the permitted log. Sterling had contacted Leah after the incident. The entry identified a delivery, not an earlier delivery of the ten-page version.
That was as far as the evidence went.
Nathan's office submitted no earlier recipient acknowledgment for the ten-page copy. The absence did not prove no one drafted it earlier. It meant Sterling had not shown that Leah received it before the incident.
I wanted to compare every changed line. The matrix did not permit it yet. I could see only that pages existed behind the masks, not what they said.
The restriction protected Leah from becoming a case file spread across a table. It also protected the finding from becoming larger than her testimony.
The panel classified the eight-page document as the pre-incident recipient copy and the ten-page document as the post-incident recipient copy. Neither classification decided who drafted, edited, approved, or sent the later version.
It decided that "final" had not meant one thing.
The custodian issued a two-line comparison finding and returned both copies to sealed view. No document text entered the general license file.
The committee scheduled a closed session to compare Sterling's distribution record against the two recipient copies. Every attendee would need a purpose allowed by the consent matrix.
Sterling submitted its proposed access list before the comparison desk closed.
Celeste appeared as CEO. Nathan appeared as legal officer. The records custodian and outside counsel each had defined roles.
The final name belonged to Sterling's director of public relations.