From what the engineer explicitly details and according to your own logical rules that you laid out.. nothing was violated. You're simply saying you believe th

From what the engineer explicitly details and according to your own logical rules that you laid out.. nothing was violated. You're simply saying you believe the engineer is lying and dishonest. This is possible but there's nothing compelling about your assumption unless you provide evidence that supports it. Otherwise it's just sort of a random assumption. I mean, Yeah sure, for example, I could assume that he also has anger issue problems that he's unaware about, but that's a random assumption... Why would anyone care? In short I'm saying what compelling evidence do you have to make your assumption more relevant?