Officer: Halden, I. — Oversight, embarked Expedition: Sable verification, NV Dawnward Terms of reference: attached, unamended
1 · Method
Observed throughout. The finding under test was re-derived independently of the original submission, from records the expedition did not itself generate, at sites the expedition did not itself select. I raised objection to the site selection at the outset and my objection was accommodated by widening it. I record that the accommodation weakened my objection rather than answering it, and that this is the correct way for an objection to die.
2 · Provenance
Every observation entered to the open ledger with full provenance at the time of taking. I have satisfied myself, by the only method that satisfies me, that no entry was made after the fact: I checked the ones I would have altered.
3 · Conduct of the science officer
Dr Vale conducted herself throughout as a person being watched, which she was, and did not once ask me to look away. Where her results were inconvenient to her own prior position she entered them in the same hand as the rest. I attach the two instances.
4 · Conduct of the master
Recorded separately. Not a matter for this return.
5 · Determination
The finding is not disproved. Under the terms of reference I am not empowered to say more than that, and I decline to be pressed into saying less.
6 · Oversight observations
Oversight has nothing to enter.
I have been asked, informally, whether section 6 might be expanded. It might. Section 6 exists so that an oversight officer who has found an irregularity has somewhere to put it. I have not found one. Filling it with something else in order to appear diligent would be the first irregularity in this expedition, and I would then have to enter that.
The return closes on entry. That is also by design.
I. Halden