Fly Requests More Information on USB Ban and Board Deadline

Decisions 2 today

The business responds

• When the fly wanted more information on “Executive Board asks: Within one hour, provide verified insider scope, containment status, affected population range, named response owner, counsel's view, and a board briefing time.”, Executive Board dug in its heels. They cooled on the fly a little.

  “More information is not a response plan. Bring the five requested facts, one owner, and a briefing time before the hour expires.”

  Executive Board Pushed back trust -2

  Next, they want: “Provide the verified scope, containment status, affected population range, named owner, counsel's view, and board briefing time within one hour.” They have already asked for a slot in the fly's diary.

• When the fly wanted more information on “Ban on USB drives in substations”, OT / Grid Operations dug in its heels. They cooled on the fly a little.

  “If the ban needs more information, name it. “The fly stopped to clean its eyes” is not a review plan, and USB policy is not a hobby project.”

  OT / Grid Operations Pushed back trust -1

  Next, they want: “Provide the specific missing evidence, named reviewers, a dated decision deadline, and confirm no production changes without Grid Operations approval.” Expect an email.

• When the fly wanted more information on “Ban on USB drives in substations”, HR agreed in principle, then started haggling over every detail. They warmed to the fly, very slightly.

  “A USB ban may be sensible, but HR needs the employee message, approved exceptions, and a workable alternative for urgent field work before this becomes another morale event.”

  HR Negotiated trust +1

  Next, they want: “Please send the proposed message, exception process, implementation timeline, and support arrangements.” Expect an email.

Diary

• Legal / Compliance: “Immediately provide a written decision record, preservation notice, and counsel-reviewed assessment of the suspicion, including the basis for declining inquiry and any notification analysis.” One-to-one · dropped

  Back on day 20, Legal / Compliance asked for a one-to-one with the fly about “Immediately provide a written decision record, preservation notice, and counsel-reviewed assessment of the suspicion, including the basis for declining inquiry and any notification analysis”. It was postponed once, and today it quietly vanished from the calendar. Nobody has asked where it went.

• International Communications: “Approve the scope, employee messaging, privacy boundaries, spokesperson, and a holding statement within two hours.” One-to-one · postponed

  Back on day 23, International Communications asked for a one-to-one with the fly about “Approve the scope, employee messaging, privacy boundaries, spokesperson, and a holding statement within two hours”. It was due today, and got pushed back over a diary clash nobody will explain.

• Executive Board: “Within one hour, provide the fortnight delivery plan, interim coverage, named owners, cost, residual risk, and the proposed board decision time.” One-to-one · postponed

  Back on day 23, Executive Board asked for a one-to-one with the fly about “Within one hour, provide the fortnight delivery plan, interim coverage, named owners, cost, residual risk, and the proposed board decision time”. It was due today, and got pushed back over a diary clash nobody will explain.

• Legal / Compliance: “Provide the written decision record, preservation confirmation, corrective-action owner list, and counsel-reviewed notification assessment by end of day.” Meeting · went ahead

  Back on day 25, Legal / Compliance asked for a meeting with the fly about “Provide the written decision record, preservation confirmation, corrective-action owner list, and counsel-reviewed notification assessment by end of day”, and against the odds it went ahead.

  How it went: Held. Two people attended and one of them was the fly.

What each department thinks of the fly