Chapter 162 : Dr. Rowe Prepares

Witness preparation was something I'd spent four years getting better at, and the thing I'd learned was that coaching wasn't the same as teaching.

Coaching produced polished testimony that juries noticed and discounted. Teaching produced understanding — and when a witness understood their own material at the level where they could explain it without a script, the jury felt that understanding. That was what landed.

Dr. Rowe was already exceptionally good at explaining her material. She'd spent twelve years teaching pharmaceutical chemistry, and her instinct was to make things comprehensible rather than to perform expertise. That was the foundation.

What she needed was different.

She needed to know what Covington would do to that foundation.

We spent four sessions over three weeks.

The first session was me as neutral questioner: walk me through what you found, in the order you found it. She did this cleanly — the version history, the threshold changes, the executive meeting agenda, the decision to go to compliance and then to legal. The scientific explanation was rigorous and accessible. Good.

The second session was me as defense counsel. Not gentle.

"Dr. Rowe, isn't it true that you were passed over for a senior research director position at Meridian in 2013?"

She blinked.

"Yes," she said.

"And that position went to a colleague who shared your area of expertise?"

"Yes."

"And two months after you learned you didn't get the position, you began the investigation that led to this lawsuit?"

She started to explain.

"Yes or no, Dr. Rowe."

"That's not a yes or no—"

"The jury will be asked to evaluate your credibility. If the answer to that question sounds like a dodge, Covington wins the witness."

She was quiet.

"Try again," I said.

"Yes. I was passed over. And yes, the timeline overlaps. The reason the timeline overlaps is that the promotion process required me to review the research division's data practices as part of my candidacy materials, which is how I encountered the modified program." She looked at me. "That's the true answer."

"Good. Say that."

We went through eleven questions like that. The credential attacks. The alternative-interpretation arguments. The suggestion that she'd misunderstood the statistical methodology. Each time I pushed too hard, she found the answer that was both true and clear. Not defensive. Not rehearsed. Honest with the specific precision that scientists used when they were describing something they'd actually seen.

The third session was Harvey.

I'd called him the previous week and said: "I need someone who cross-examines like someone who doesn't care whether the witness lives or dies. Do you have an hour?"

"You want me to destroy your client in practice."

"I want you to try."

Harvey arrived on a Thursday afternoon with no notes and the expression of someone who had already been running through approach vectors since I'd called.

He was in the room with Dr. Rowe for forty-five minutes.

He was precise, relentless, and genuinely attempting to break her credibility. He challenged her statistical credentials — she had a Ph.D. in pharmaceutical chemistry, not statistics, which Covington would use to argue she lacked the expertise to interpret the algorithm modification. He challenged her timing — the promotion rejection, the data review, the sequence that looked like motive if you squinted.

He pushed her on the alternative explanation: wasn't it possible that the algorithm modification was a legitimate update made for methodological reasons that her non-statistical background prevented her from understanding?

She answered: "The version history shows eleven changes. All eleven produced the same directional effect: lower adverse event reporting. A methodological update doesn't selectively lower adverse event reporting in eleven parameters simultaneously. That's not statistics — that's pattern recognition."

Harvey looked at me.

I gave a small nod.

"Good," Harvey said to Dr. Rowe, and dropped the cross-examination affect entirely. He stood and put on his jacket. "You'll be fine. Your material is clean and you understand it at a level that doesn't require performance."

She looked slightly surprised.

"That was the hardest version," he said. "Covington won't be better than me."

He left.

Dr. Rowe looked at me.

"Is that true?" she said.

"It's close to true," I said. "Covington will be equally aggressive. They won't be as fast."

Donna Paulsen Roden — September 2016

She watched the Meridian press coverage the way she watched everything adjacent to Scott's cases: with the attention of someone who understood more than she was supposed to and had the specific restraint to not do anything about it unless asked.

The PR campaign was sophisticated. Industry groups, trade association statements, a piece in a pharmaceutical trade publication that called Dr. Rowe's allegations "the product of one researcher's misunderstanding of complex statistical methodology." Standard playbook. Expensive. Coordinated.

She was at her Friedman office when she read the trade publication piece and made a note on a legal pad. Three observations about the piece's structural weaknesses — where it created vulnerabilities in Meridian's defense by overstating the "scientific consensus" framing.

She texted Scott: The trade publication piece. Read paragraph four.

He replied forty seconds later: Already on it. How fast did you see it?

Paragraph four was their mistake. The consensus framing invites Okafor to establish that the consensus actually requires the original data.

I know. I told Okafor this morning.

She put the phone down and went back to her client brief.

She wasn't Scott's paralegal. She wasn't his case consultant. She was his wife, who happened to see things clearly and communicated them when it was useful. The distinction was fine and real.

She thought about Elena Vasquez, who had been at Friedman for eight months now and was developing her own instincts for healthcare operational patterns at a speed that told Donna the hire had been exactly right. Two more clients in the Paulsen portfolio — one through Mercy General's COO referral, one through a former PSL corporate client who'd heard about the Henderson resolution through the legal community grapevine.

Fourteen months until the Paulsen Consulting launch, if the timeline held.

She went back to the brief.

The jury selection for the Meridian trial took eight days.

I'd used voir dire to build a picture of each potential juror's ability to follow statistical evidence presented through an expert. Not their education level — that was a poor predictor. Their comfort with the idea that data could tell a story, that patterns could be visible or invisible depending on how you arranged the numbers.

The Argument Crusher had been running behavioral analysis during every voir dire session.

[ Argument Crusher: Juror capacity assessment — statistical comprehension. Priority indicators: comfort with uncertainty acknowledgment, ability to distinguish correlation from causation, response to expert authority without uncritical acceptance. ]

The final twelve: two engineers from different industries, a retired bank examiner, a pharmacist at a Walgreens who had been filling prescriptions for twenty years and had a working understanding of drug approval processes, a hospital administrator, a retired high school math teacher, and six citizens who had demonstrated — through their voir dire responses — the capacity to follow a technical argument and hold it against a narrative that contradicted it.

Covington had tried to exclude the pharmacist and the retired statistician. I'd challenged the exclusion motions and won both. Judge Chen had the expression of someone who had heard enough delay tactics and was going to let the strongest jury composition stand.

The night before opening statements, I sat in the war room alone.

The case timeline covered one wall. The algorithm modification evidence. Okafor's expert report. The executive meeting agenda. The CMO's deposition transcript — the three hours during which he'd failed to explain the six-day window in a way that didn't create more inconsistencies than it resolved. The version history.

[ Win Rate Calculator: Trial assessment — updated. Evidence: strong. Expert testimony: prepared and specific. Jury composition: favorable for technical comprehension. Covington strategy: scientific disagreement + motive attack. Probability: 62%. ]

Sixty-two percent.

The highest it had been.

I looked at the number and thought about the Hessington trial, which had opened at sixty-one and dropped to forty-two before the overnight comeback. I thought about the Forstman defense at thirty-eight. I thought about Mike's plea framework at thirty-four.

The number was a starting point.

I called Dr. Rowe.

She picked up on the second ring. The particular sound of someone who had not been sleeping.

"How are you?" I said.

"Terrified," she said.

I thought about Donna in the Palm House in April 2014, two months before the wedding: I thought I'd feel sad. I think I finally took a breath.

"That's right," I said. "It means you understand the stakes."

"I understand the stakes," she said.

"Then we're ready."

A pause.

"Are you sure?" she said.

I looked at the evidence wall. The algorithm. The meeting agenda. The version history. Okafor. Dr. Marcus Chen, who would handle the statistical forensics testimony. Sarah Chen, who had managed thirty-two opposing motions over eight months without losing her composure or her rhythm.

Marcus Williams, who had found the program modification at 2 AM in May.

"Yes," I said.

I meant it.

I picked up the opening statement I'd been revising for three weeks and read it one more time.

It was four pages.

The first paragraph read: In 2011, a pharmaceutical company modified a computer program. The modification took eleven minutes. It changed eleven parameters in a statistical analysis algorithm. Every change produced the same result: fewer cardiac adverse events reached the FDA report.

It wasn't an accident. It wasn't a judgment call. It was engineering.

I set it down.

Tomorrow, opening statements.

The case that Dr. Ayasha Rowe had carried for five years — six months of fear before she came to us, and sixteen months since — was going to be placed in front of twelve people who had promised under oath to follow the evidence where it led.

That was what courts were for.

Scott Roden put the file in his briefcase and went home to Donna, who was asleep, and the city that was doing what it always did, and the morning that was on the other side of the dark.

A LOT More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.com.

• Normal | $8 — 15 chapters ahead

• Advanced | $11 — 20 chapters ahead

• Overlord | $19 — 25 chapters ahead, plus request a refinement (plot, character, system) on any of my novels

/TheFinex5

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰

― DECREE ―

More chapters reign FREE upon unwrittenrealm.com.

The throne acknowledges.

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰