What Alex wrote is a bit interesting given his update (emphasis my own): >At this point, it was reasonable to believe that Wes was operating on behalf of Synac

What Alex wrote is a bit interesting given his update (emphasis my own): >At this point, it was reasonable to believe that Wes was operating on behalf of Synack. His account on our portal mentions Synack as his affiliation, he has interacted with us using a synack.com email address, and he has written blog posts that are used by Synack for marketing purposes. According to Alex this is the timeline: 1. Researcher not happy with sum 2. Researcher already in contact using Synack email address 3. Alex calls Synack CEO From the researcher's blog: >I never contacted Facebook or Alex using my work email account. It was only after Alex contacted my employer via email that I sent a reply from my work account. Alex indirectly contacted me at work, not the other way around. This means that Alex is lying, is telling exactly the facts needed to come to a specific conclusion and nothing more or the researcher is lying. And he's "written blog posts that are used by Synack"? Come now. Reads a lot like someone looking for a third item so they can make it a comma separated list of reasons. His post smells like bullshit.