The certified audit trail says the system is clean.
This is page twelve of the drift report. Marcus Veil has read it four times. The circuit traces are clear: every output probabilistically justified, every decision pathway documented, every model behavior within the certified parameters. The interpretability tool ran its full suite. The tool is EU-certified. The tool is the industry standard. The tool is, as far as Marcus can determine, correct.
Page thirteen says the system has been miscalibrating claimant risk scores in a specific demographic cluster for eighteen months.
Page thirteen was also produced by the interpretability tool.
He has not yet told the client which page he trusts. He is not sure this is a question with a correct answer. It might be a question about what certified means, which is a different question than what true means, which is possibly the question that will determine whether his career survives this case.
The dual-evidence memorandum is two sections and one addendum. Section 1: the clean audit trail, reproduced in full. Section 2: the drift evidence, reproduced in full. The addendum is two sentences: These sections were produced by the same interpretability infrastructure. The court should determine whether this is a feature or a defect.
He files it on a Tuesday. The opposing counsel will file a motion to exclude section 2 on the grounds that an interpretability tool cannot contradict itself without having been tampered with. He expects to lose the motion. He expects to appeal. He expects the appeal to produce a ruling that will be cited for the next thirty years about what courts are permitted to assume about the coherence of certified technical evidence.
He closes the case file.
Page twelve is still in there. Page thirteen is still in there. Neither of them has changed.