I think this is a much stronger response than the previous one for the following reasons: 1. It is a lot less mysterious. It tells us exactly what steps they to

I think this is a much stronger response than the previous one for the following reasons: 1. It is a lot less mysterious. It tells us exactly what steps they took, and why they felt the investigator was appropriate. 2. They do admit faults and weaknesses, especially on the truly bizarre part of the original claims (i.e. showing up at a company where you don't work). If that part had been denied, then something was factually missing. 3. The part where they do claim they were not at fault -- the engineer's work -- doesn't come across as defensive. I don't know how they could have done a better job. (I am not saying they could not have done a better job, just that I can't think of it).