The engineer refused the number before she refused the interview.
She asked the independent advocate who received a call-back ticket when the proposed channel forwarded a message. The advocate had been told it was a neutral scheduling service. The engineer recognized the number’s final routing from work she had done before the transfer. It passed through an employer switchboard linked to the guild. A call could expose more than her willingness to speak.
The advocate tested it with a controlled inquiry.
The returned ticket included the caller’s location field. It had been carried into the forwarding record automatically. The service might not have intended to reveal a relative’s current workplace, but intention did not remove the field. The engineer had a family member at a site she did not want associated with this request.
She said no to that channel.
Tessa read the test result twice. The team had offered advice, careful publication terms, and a promise not to use an old roster number. They had still accepted a service description without tracing where the contact traveled. General legal support had not fixed the exposure.
The advocate suspended the proposed appointment.
No one told the engineer that refusing would cost the coalition a useful corroboration. She knew what had been requested. She did not need her awareness sharpened into pressure. Tessa asked whether she wanted an alternative investigated or preferred no further contact. The engineer said she would examine a truly independent receiving arrangement before deciding.
