The summons asked Eli to bring the artifact he had mentioned after the shelter rescue.
He read that sentence three times. The notice also requested a description of the visible anchoring effect and his earlier pointing at the damaged structure, the conditions under which he could repeat them, and any equipment used. An inaccurate declaration could affect his registration. The interview was not yet the formal assessment, but the notice said the assessor could schedule one afterward.
Eli laid the preserved transcript beside the summons. The artifact answer was there in his own words. He put a line through the empty space on his preparation list where the device should have been.
“Don’t leave that looking as if you forgot to pack it,” Nora said.
He wrote: No artifact produced the anchoring effect. I did not possess the device described in my answer. He stopped before signing. The page made the lie harder to hide behind a hurried conversation.
“Will they let me into the interview without what they’ve asked me to bring?”
Nora called the number on the summons. The clerk could confirm that an advocate could attend, but could not excuse a requested item or decide whether Eli’s explanation would satisfy the assessor. She asked that he bring a written response identifying anything he could not provide.
