Dear Ms. Balakrishna,

Thank you for your reply. I believe the salient differences between the
Harris transcript which Nantucket filed and the Griswold transcript filed
by myself, are that on page 1, the Harris transcript displays the caveat:

"This transcript was prepared from a flash drive in
the above captioned matter. We cannot guarantee a 
verbatim transcript from a flash drive. There may be
parts of this transcript that may reflect problems with
audibility due to poor recording."

and on page 2, the Harris transcript explains
"[...] indicates inaudible text or names."

In the Griswold transcript the issues of incompleteness and
inaudibility are expressed, on page 1, by the qualifying statement:
"This document comprises extracts of an audio recording
during a proceeding which took place on August 6, 2014."
and on page 87 by the mandatory Audio Assessment Form (AAF),
which documents the scope and the gravity of the audio recording
deficiency, an Audio Assessment Form which the Harris transcript lacks. 
In addition, the Griswold transcript identifies inaudible passages
with explicit statements, e.g. page 52, line 8: "(inaudible at 01:08:27,
away from microphone) statements that are more obvious and informative 
than the Harris transcript's "[...]" which may indicate either an 
inaudible statement or an unrecognizable voice.

It's my opinion that to document the seriousness of the audio recording
deficiency, both the Harris and the Griswold transcripts should be before
the Court, not because that deficiency conceals evidence about my plumbing
but because that deficiency constitutes incontrovertible evidence of the
irregularity of the Agency's conduct.

Sincerely,
Ernst Meyer