Chapter 10 - BLAKE'S BEST ARGUMENT
Blake’s defense in the corporate investigation was not absurd.
He said Naomi’s preliminary review had materially informed the design.
True.
Several recommendations had been implemented.
True.
He argued the final statement summarized the direction of her work.
Maybe emotionally.
Not professionally.
He also said:
“Her withdrawal came after weeks of silence.”
Naomi answered:
“I did not know you were using my name.”
Blake replied:
“You knew the design was moving forward.”
“Design moving forward is not my certification.”
Then Blake said the thing he actually believed.
“You act like your name is sacred.”
Naomi paused.
“My professional opinion is.”
That ended the room.
The issue was not ego.
The independent accessibility review eventually confirmed something important.
Mercer had fixed several issues from Naomi’s preliminary memo.
But not all.
The digital kiosks still lacked reliable screen-reader output.
The plaza route still had confusing shared-space transitions.
Emergency wayfinding needed revision.
None of those flaws made the project uniquely terrible.
They made Naomi’s supposed final certification especially misleading.
Her earlier warnings had not become obsolete.
Some were still open.
Blake’s anger was partly fear.
He had championed the design internally.
Told the board accessibility concerns were “substantially closed.”
Told procurement the team had expert support.
If Naomi withdrew, he feared:
delay,
redesign,
cost increases,
and looking incompetent.
So he turned a professional correction into personal betrayal.
That mechanism mattered.
People often become cruelest when another person’s boundary exposes a claim they made too confidently.
May you like
A consultant’s name attached to a conclusion has consequences.
Especially when the consultant never gave the conclusion.
