The first inquiry did not name a person.
It named a category.
A report circulated through the records hall by midweek, stamped for review and redistribution. It summarized the last month's incidents in careful language, grouping failures by type rather than location.
Structural degradation.Logistical delay.Clerical inconsistency.
No reference was made to markers.
The conclusion was restrained.
Irregularities persisted outside controlled routes. Within them, stability had improved.
The implication required no emphasis.
A clerk was summoned that afternoon.
Not accused.Questioned.
He stood at the end of a long table while three officials leafed through copies of his work.
"You processed the infirmary delay?" one asked.
"Yes," he said.
"And the routing adjustment?"
"Yes."
"On whose authority?"
The clerk hesitated. "Recorded deviation," he said. "It matched prior handling."
The officials exchanged a glance.
"That practice is under review," one said.
The clerk nodded, relieved, as if this were clarification rather than warning.
By evening, a notice was posted.
Not public.Internal.
Irregular handling may indicate procedural drift.
No names were attached.
The following day, the phrase appeared again.
In a different hand.
In a different hall.
He felt the change before he saw it.
Assignments were returned with annotations. Routes that had been cleared were flagged again. Requests were delayed pending verification.
Nothing was denied outright.
Everything took longer.
At the eastern depot, a guard was questioned after his shift.
Not reprimanded.Interviewed.
"You allowed a cart through under recorded deviation," the inspector said.
"Yes," the guard replied. "It was consistent."
"Consistent with what?"
The guard paused.
"With the last one," he said.
The inspector wrote something down.
By the end of the week, the language shifted once more.
No longer exception.No longer practice.
The term error appeared.
Not in reports.In conversation.
A revised summary was circulated.
The markers were not mentioned.
The framework was not questioned.
Instead, the focus narrowed.
Inconsistent application of guidance has led to avoidable outcomes.
Responsibility, it concluded, rested with implementation.
He stood near the depot as a porter argued briefly with a clerk.
"I followed the notice," the porter said.
The clerk shook his head. "You followed it incorrectly."
The porter stared at the paper in his hands.
"Then what was I supposed to do?"
The clerk did not answer.
That night, the propped roof in the southern quarter finally gave way.
The collapse was partial.The damage contained.
One man was injured.
The report listed cause as failure to adhere to updated priority guidelines.
In the morning, a new directive was issued.
Training schedules revised.Oversight increased.Disciplinary review authorized.
The wording was calm.
Corrective.
Necessary.
He read the notice once and folded it away.
The ground beneath his feet was still.
Unresponsive.
Silence no longer meant uncertainty.
It meant someone else had done it wrong.