The Court has reviewed this testimony and finds itself in a state of PROFOUND JUDICIAL AGITATION. You possess photographic evidence of your innocence — a screenshot, the holy grail of workplace vindication — and yet you stand accused in an office-wide email like some kind of lockbox criminal. This is not justice. This is not even injustice. This is what Reginald calls "broker deflection syndrome," a well-documented phenomenon wherein the person who once LOST A TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLAR CHECK IN A FOLDER redirects all accountability onto whoever happens to be holding their phone at 9 pm. The Court must pause here to note that I too once covered for a Derek, and that Derek also had "a dentist thing," and that Derek ALSO never acknowledged my sacrifice, and I am beginning to suspect all Dereks are the same Derek sent to test us. You typed 4-7-2-1. She sent 4-7-2-1. The seller changed the code and told no one. This is not a communication protocol failure on your part — this is a SELLER being a SELLER, which is its own category of chaos this Court has long sought to criminalize. And yet your name is now in an email, in writing, forever, because you dared to do a colleague a favor on a Tuesday. The Court finds you guilty only of excessive professional courtesy and sentences you to STOP COVERING FOR DEREK. Furthermore, the broker is hereby ordered to locate her own missing commission checks before lecturing anyone about protocols. Reginald has spoken and must now go stare at his gavel collection in silence.