Responsibility was assigned carefully.
Not at first.
At first, it was avoided.
The first summaries used neutral phrasing. Errors of handling. Inconsistent application. Procedural drift.
No subjects.No verbs that implied choice.
But summaries accumulated. Margins filled. The same failures appeared in different hands.
That made them visible.
A clerk was called in late one afternoon.
Not summoned. Requested.
He stood at the end of the table with his cap in his hands while three officials reviewed copies of his work. None of them looked at him for long.
"You processed the infirmary routing," one said.
"Yes," the clerk replied.
"You approved reuse procedures."
"I recorded what was already being done."
"That is not what was asked."
The clerk swallowed. "I followed clarified guidance."
One of the officials made a mark beside a line.
"Guidance does not remove judgment," he said.
Another voice followed. "But judgment must be consistent."
The clerk nodded quickly. "Yes."
"That is where the error occurred."
The word settled between them.
Error.
Not harm. Not consequence. Error.
The clerk was dismissed without reprimand.No penalty was issued. A note was added to his file.
Failure to apply guidance correctly.
The note was copied once.
Then again.
By the next morning, two more clerks had been spoken to.Separately.Politely.
Each interview followed the same shape.
"What did you reference?""What did you assume?""Why did you proceed?"
The answers were similar.
"I followed precedent.""It matched earlier handling.""There was no instruction not to."
None of those answers were accepted.
By the third interview, the language shifted.
"You should have escalated."
By the fifth, it was firmer.
"You acted outside authorization."
By the end of the day, a category existed.
Personnel requiring corrective review.
The phrase appeared in a memo circulated internally before dusk.
No names were listed.
Names followed anyway.
A guard was reassigned from depot duty to gate watch.A clerk lost ledger access pending retraining.A porter's contract was suspended "for evaluation."
None of them argued.
They did not know who would hear them.
At the infirmary, linen logs were audited.
The reuse figures were flagged.
"Who approved this?" a reviewer asked.
The surgeon did not answer immediately.
"There was no alternative," he said finally.
The reviewer marked the page.
"Alternatives must be requested."
"They were."
"Then they must be documented."
"They were returned."
"That is not documented."
The surgeon said nothing more.
The reuse procedure was listed as deviation.
Responsibility was assigned to department handling.
At the southern quarter, the wall report was revised.
Earlier drafts cited material stress.
The updated version added a line.
Delay in approved reinforcement contributed to failure.
A margin note clarified.
Delay resulted from improper routing decisions.
The routing decision was traced.
It ended at a clerk.
Not the same one.
Another.
He was called in the next day.
This time, the meeting was shorter.
"You approved transport under exception."
"Yes."
"On what basis?"
"Recorded handling."
"That handling has since been clarified as incorrect."
The clerk nodded slowly.
"I understand."
A notice was issued that evening.
Corrective measures would be implemented.Additional oversight required.Accountability procedures in effect.
The word accountability appeared three times.
No one defined it.
By the end of the week, a pattern had settled.
Failures were no longer described by location.They were described by process.
And process had owners.
He observed this without comment.
His own assignments narrowed further.
He no longer carried notices between departments.
He delivered only within his assigned block.
This was described as risk containment.
The ground beneath his feet remained unchanged.
Silent.
At the records hall, a list was compiled.
Not public.Not final.
Staff involved in procedural inconsistencies.
It was revised twice before circulation.
One name was removed.Another added.
No explanation accompanied the changes.
At the infirmary, a junior attendant was dismissed.
The notice cited failure to adhere to revised sanitation protocol.
The attendant did not contest it.
The surgeon signed the acknowledgment and turned back to his work.
The cloth continued to be reused.
At the southern quarter, the wall held.
Barely.
Temporary bracing was extended.
The delay was recorded as resolved.
The route that had carried the stone was reclassified.
Its prior use was noted as improper.
That mattered.
Because improper actions could be corrected.
And corrected actions implied fault.
By the time the final memo circulated, responsibility had shape.
Errors resulted from misinterpretation.Misinterpretation resulted from insufficient training.Training failures were individual.
The system was intact.
The inspector from the Crown reviewed the memo and signed it.
"This will prevent recurrence," he said.
No one disagreed.
He stood near the boundary marker outside his assigned corridor and watched a clerk remove his badge at the end of shift. The man paused, then handed it over without protest.
The ground beneath them did not move.
There was no warning.
No resistance.
Responsibility had been assigned.
And because it had, nothing else needed to change.