When a jigsaw is not enough

It happens, we all need a puzzle to make sense of the things we are not addressing. Whether it is a game, the idea of a TV-series, a movie concept, at some point, each and every one of us hits a blockade, a road-sign we cannot circumvent. I tend to look into data puzzles, I have always done that. It is how I found how certain people in Rotterdam were baking the books in the Rotterdam harbour, it is how I saw the stage of fabricated data by [redacted]. Now I see ‘How to investigate a firm with 60 million documents’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55306139). There we see ““Airbus was like a tower block with 900 apartments in it. We had to decide which ones we were going to go into and investigate,” she says.”, this implies if only 9 apartments are checked, there is a mere 1% chance that they optionally find anything. How dissatisfying and idiot driven does that come across? Then we see “Artificial intelligence (AI) and a bespoke computer unlike any PC you have ever worked on played a big part in this epic data trawl”, which is interesting, for the mere reason that at present AI does not yet exist, as such it seems that Airbus is not really investigated. And when we see “A daunting collection of 500 million documents and transactions had to be whittled down”, it might be daunting, but how did Airbus pass accountancy audit after accountancy audit? If we consider that, what is left to optionally find? 

My success in a harbour event was because I looked where no one else was looking, it amounted to the fact that those programming data and events were not really from a harbour origin like I was, as such the idle time folly sprung out to me, idle time is never ever linear, so making three times more times on the crane does not mean that idle time increases the same way and as that was not registered, adding idle time tickets implied the false numbers, a harbour has a set amount of cranes, in this I see similar steps in Airbus (not exactly the same), I wonder how consultancy hours is booked and settled against the books of the actual consultant, as well as the consultancy firms involved. Then there is the stage of advertisements, sponsors (mentioned in article), storage and a few other stages, as such the quote “After duplicates and other irrelevant material were eliminated the investigators were left with 60 million documents for review”, I wonder how much was duplicate (optionally valid) and what percentage was irrelevant. The second side is that when people set a larger stage (to hide millions) time and travel are equally a setting to be investigated (and perhaps they are), In all this, there is no issue or opposition to the BBC article, the title merely woke me up, it was a jigsaw of a different nature. It is “No business is ever really ready for a full forensic investigation,” Ms Khalil says, but her co-workers from Airbus were very responsive. “When the regulator pushed for a quick response on something they moved on it”, it might be right, and it might be dimensionality, yet how does ‘the regulator pushed for a quick response’ fit? Something this large cannot and will not adhere to ‘quick response’, yet I also accept that something this big is unlikely to be checked for 100%, that too makes sense, as such, who was the accountant of Airbus? What do they not look at? You see a jigsaw can be solved in all kinds of ways, there is first the outline, after that it becomes a jumble of hat captures your eyes. Different image, different approach, in some cases, we concentrate on colours, in some cases on an element in the jigsaw, all different ways and it fluctuates per puzzle, yet it is set to the constraint of the outline of the puzzle, in this case we have no outline. As such it is about more than the stage we see, it is about the links we do not see. As such I considered: time, consultants, materials, storage and booked elements that only indirectly hit Airbus. And yes, I could be completely wrong, I merely looked at an article and I know there is more, but the fact that we also see “Airbus opened up its operations to intense scrutiny in 2016”, as well as “Ms Khalil and a 70-strong team faced an ocean of files, transaction data and emails spanning worldwide activities”, all that whilst there is no AI at present, I merely wonder what they are up to and what they have been doing for 4 years, optionally getting a 6 figure payment for 4 years or more, are you not on that page yet?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.