[philman_36]

My assertion was that the whistleblower stated on the form that he had direct knowledge, and he did so state.
You did say that in the first part of your comment....

The whistleblower stated on the form that he did have direct knowledge of some of the alleged acts and the IG agreed.
And then you said this...
He had direct knowledge. It doesn’t matter what the form says.
That isn't an assertion, that's a declaration, and an unfounded one at that.

You’re not arguing in good faith.
And you say that of me?

Search for this..."direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct". Think about that.
Not "direct knowledge of certain conduct"...
"direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct".

[semimojo]

Let me simplify this for you.

It doesn’t matter what I think.

The WB said he had direct knowledge of some of the acts (for some bizarre reason you have an issue when I say alleged acts).

The IG determined that his claim in that regard was credible. In the IG’s judgment the WB had direct knowledge.

Given those two facts it doesn’t matter what the forms said and there would have been no benefit to anyone to have changed them.