The manifest is 847 rows.
She expected to find negligence. She found something more careful than that.
Row 1: licensed_status: submitted. Intake date: March 4. Row 2: licensed_status: acknowledged. Intake date: March 4. Row 3: licensed_status: under review. Intake date: March 5.
Each row was logged by a different intake coordinator. Each status was different — submitted, acknowledged, under review, pending, pending, pending — but each one was assigned on a date that followed the previous row's date. The tool was not trained on a single batch. It was trained progressively, over nine months, in increments of 12 to 40 rows at a time.
She sits with this for a long time.
Negligence is when you do not check. This is different. Each intake coordinator checked and recorded what they found. Each one knew what the previous coordinator had recorded. The pending rows are not a mistake. They are a design: a workflow in which intake could proceed before licensing completed, indefinitely, so long as each step was individually documented.
The training data was not licensed. But the process of acquiring it was formally complete.
She writes in her case notes: this is not a gap in the system. This is the system.
She does not file anything yet. She reads the manifest again from the beginning. There is a name on row 1 that appears again on row 312 and on row 601. Same intake coordinator, three separate batches, across nine months. She writes the name in her notes and underlines it.