林彥的工作不是判斷一篇論文對不對。

Lin Yen’s job was not to judge whether a paper was right.

院刊《分子行為學刊》每季從院內作者已發表的論文裡抽出百分之二，交給可重複性編輯。他要確認的是另一件事：論文背後的資料是否存在，實驗是否確實發生過，被引用的那些紀錄，撐不撐得住作者寫下的每一個數字。抽查辦法寫明，必要時編輯可以進實驗室調閱原件，作者不得拒絕。

Every quarter the institute’s house journal, the Journal of Molecular Behaviour, drew two per cent of the papers its in-house authors had already published and handed them to the reproducibility editor. What he had to confirm was something else: whether the data behind a paper existed, whether the experiments had actually taken place, whether the records it cited could bear the weight of every number the authors had written down. The sampling rules stated that the editor could, where necessary, enter a laboratory and call up the originals, and that the authors could not refuse.

這一季，平台替他抽中陳其昌的 K-17。

This quarter the platform had drawn Chen Chi-chang’s K-17 for him.

三個實驗室，四百二十隻小鼠，資料橫跨七年。樣本量算得剛好，效應量不浮誇，統計方法交代得乾乾淨淨，引用文獻七十八篇。補充表 S3 列著排除標準，最後一行寫：因校準問題排除影像三段。這種表他一年看幾十份，視線從那一行滑過去，沒有停。

Three laboratories, four hundred and twenty mice, data spanning seven years. The sample size was calculated just so, the effect size was unshowy, the statistical methods were set out cleanly, and there were seventy-eight references. Supplementary Table S3 listed the exclusion criteria; its last line read: three video segments excluded owing to calibration issues. He saw dozens of tables like it a year. His eye slid over the line and did not stop.

異常在補充圖 S7。圖注寫：行為追蹤系統校準紀錄見附錄 S8。

The anomaly was in Supplementary Figure S7. The legend read: for calibration records of the behavioural tracking system, see Appendix S8.

他打開 S8。

He opened S8.

校準日期：2019-02-29。

Calibration date: 2019-02-29.

他看著那幾個數字，拿起手機，打開日曆往回滑。2019 年 2 月，二十八格。

He looked at the digits, picked up his phone, opened the calendar and scrolled back. February 2019: twenty-eight squares.

這不一定代表什麼。儀器時鐘出錯的事他見過，表單填錯的事他見得更多。他點開 S8 的紀錄明細。

It did not have to mean anything. He had seen instrument clocks go wrong, and wrongly filled forms far more often. He opened the record details for S8.

自動補全不稀奇。院裡的資料完整性政策允許平台用三個以上的受管來源，補齊歷史紀錄裡的空欄，大多是操作者姓名、試劑批號、冰箱溫度這類東西。每一筆補進去的資料都帶兩個時間：哪一天寫入，以及這筆紀錄算作哪一天。前一個，平台從不改動。

Auto-completion was nothing unusual. The institute’s data-integrity policy allowed the platform to fill blank fields in historical records from three or more managed sources—operator names, reagent lot numbers, freezer temperatures, mostly that sort of thing. Every entry filled in this way carried two times: the day it was written, and the day the record counted as. The first, the platform never altered.

頁面頂端是全院共用的指標列：

Across the top of the page ran the metrics bar shared by the whole institute:

他寫信給陳其昌：「可能部分是我理解不完整，但想跟您確認 S8 的校準日期。」

He wrote to Chen Chi-chang: “It may partly be that my understanding is incomplete, but I would like to confirm the calibration date in S8 with you.”

回信二十分鐘後就到了。

The reply came twenty minutes later.

「林老師好：該型號儀器有時鐘晶片異常之已知問題，日期顯示可能有誤。相關工單、客服郵件及工程師排班均已附於 S8，如需其他資料請告知。」

“Dear Dr Lin, This instrument model has a known clock-chip fault; the displayed date may be incorrect. The relevant work order, support emails and engineer roster are all attached to S8. Please let me know if you need anything further.”

跟平台建議說明的後半段，一字不差。

Word for word, the second half of the platform’s suggested explanation.

附件裡除了工單、三封郵件和一張排班表，還有一頁廠商知識庫的維修筆記，是工程師手寫後掃描的：「老型號，時鐘晶片會跳，修過很多台。」筆記頁首的儀器序號，跟 S7 那一台對不上。

Besides the work order, three emails and a roster, the attachments included a page of repair notes from the vendor’s knowledge base, handwritten by an engineer and scanned: “Old model, clock chip skips, fixed plenty of these.” The instrument serial number at the head of the note did not match the one in S7.

時鐘晶片會跳，這句話沒錯。一顆把 2019 年算成閏年的晶片，確實會在二月底多走出一天。

The clock chip skips: there was nothing wrong with that sentence. A chip that took 2019 for a leap year would indeed walk one day too many at the end of February.

可是那樣的話，之後每一天都會跟著錯一格：真正的 3 月 1 日被記成 2 月 29 日，3 月 2 日被記成 3 月 1 日，一路錯下去，直到有人把它調回來。只要找到另一個不歸這台儀器管的時鐘，對一下就知道。

But in that case every day after it would be off by one as well: the real 1 March recorded as 29 February, 2 March as 1 March, wrong all the way down until someone set it back. He only had to find another clock, one this instrument had no say over, and compare.

他打電話到動物房。

He rang the animal facility.

「陳老師的籠位喔？有，系統裡都有。」管理員說。

“Dr Chen’s cage positions? Sure, it’s all in the system,” the manager said.

「2019 年 2 月 29 日，B 架有沒有移籠紀錄？」

“On 29 February 2019, is there any cage-transfer record for Rack B?”

「有啊，系統裡——」鍵盤聲停了。「欸，二月沒有二十九號。」

“There is, in the system—“ The keys stopped. “Huh. February doesn’t have a twenty-ninth.”

「那 3 月 1 日。」

“1 March, then.”

「3 月 1 日……B 架六籠，早上九點十二分刷卡出去，送行為室，下午三點四十刷回來。3 月 2 日沒有。」

“1 March… Rack B, six cages, badged out at 9.12 in the morning for the behaviour room, badged back in at 3.40 in the afternoon. Nothing on 2 March.”

行為核心在地下一樓。技術員蕭琪領他走到最裡面，一台米色機殼的工作站，螢幕邊框泛黃。

The behaviour core was on basement level one. Hsiao Chi, the technician, led him to the very back: a workstation in a beige case, the bezel of its monitor gone yellow.

「舊追蹤系統只能跑在這台。作業系統早就停止更新，資安不准它連網，USB 也鎖了。」她拍拍旁邊的抽屜。「每季我用院裡發的加密碟手動同步一次。下禮拜剛好要同步。這季開始，同步完會清本機，非實驗檔一律移去院裡歸檔。」

“The old tracking system only runs on this one. The operating system stopped getting updates long ago, IT security won’t let it on the network, and the USB ports are locked.” She patted the drawer beside it. “Once a quarter I sync it by hand with the encrypted drive the institute issues. Next week happens to be the sync. Starting this quarter, the local disk gets wiped after syncing, and anything that isn’t an experiment file gets moved to the institute archive.”

「審計期間，可以先不要同步嗎？」

“While the audit is on, could you hold off syncing?”

蕭琪看了他一眼，在自己的電腦上開了一張證據保全單，申請人欄填他的名字。「保全期間不能動。審計結束你要跟我講。」

Hsiao Chi gave him a look, opened an evidence preservation order on her own computer and entered his name as the applicant. “Nothing gets touched while the hold is on. When the audit’s finished, you tell me.”

廠商軟體啟動要一分多鐘。檔案依日期排列，他捲到 2019 年 2 月底：02-28，接著是 03-01，中間沒有別的。

The vendor software took over a minute to start. The files were listed by date. He scrolled to the end of February 2019: 02-28, then 03-01, nothing in between.

3 月 1 日第一段，檔案時間九點四十一分，畫面左上角燒著同一個時間。籠子九點十二分推出動物房，適應半小時，開始測試。對得上。

The first segment on 1 March had a file time of 9.41, and the same time was burnt into the top-left corner of the frame. The cages were wheeled out of the animal facility at 9.12; half an hour to acclimatise; testing begins. It fitted.

這台儀器的時鐘沒有跳過。2 月 29 日不是它讀出來的。

This instrument’s clock had never skipped. The twenty-ninth of February had not been read off it.

軟體把當天每一段的移動軌跡縮成小圖，一格一格排開。大多是一團亂線，貼著方形場地的四壁繞，偶爾斜穿過中央。

The software shrank each segment’s movement track for the day into a thumbnail, laid out square by square. Most were a tangle of lines hugging the four walls of the square arena, now and then cutting diagonally across the middle.

第十四格是一條螺旋。

The fourteenth square was a spiral.

一隻黑色小鼠被放進場地中央。

A black mouse was placed in the centre of the arena.

牠沒有像其他小鼠那樣立刻貼牆。牠在原地轉了一圈，停下，鼻尖貼著地面嗅，再轉一圈，比上一圈大一點。半徑一圈一圈往外推，每一圈之間都有停頓，有時牠抬起前腳站一會兒，又放下來。十分鐘的測試結束時，軌跡剛好碰到場地邊緣。

It did not make straight for the wall as the other mice did. It turned one circle on the spot, stopped, sniffed with its nose to the floor, and turned another, a little wider than the last. The radius pushed outwards circle by circle, with a pause between each; sometimes it lifted its forepaws and stood for a while, then set them down again. When the ten-minute test ended, the track had just touched the edge of the arena.

「能匯出嗎？」

“Can it be exported?”

蕭琪搖頭。「影片是廠商格式，只有這台放得出來。同步上去的只有座標。」

Hsiao Chi shook her head. “The video’s in the vendor’s format. This is the only machine that can play it. Only the coordinates get synced up.”

他拿出手機，對著螢幕從頭錄了一遍。

He took out his phone and filmed the screen from the beginning.

蕭琪站在他身後看完。

Hsiao Chi stood behind him and watched to the end.

「轉圈的我看多了，十隻有九隻是耳朵。」她說，「前庭壞掉的會歪頭，會跌，翻過來半天爬不起來。」她用筆尖點了點螢幕。「牠很穩。」

“I’ve seen plenty of circlers. Nine times out of ten it’s the ears,” she said. “The ones with a bad vestibular system tilt their heads, fall over, take forever to get up once they’re on their backs.” She tapped the screen with the tip of her pen. “This one’s steady.”

他用筆電登入平台，拿檔名去查。它在 K-17 的資料集裡，在「已排除」那一欄。

He logged in to the platform on his laptop and searched by file name. It was in the K-17 dataset, in the column marked “Excluded”.

比 S8 晚兩分鐘。S3 那一行「因校準問題排除影像三段」，其中一段就是牠。

Two minutes later than S8. That line in S3, “three video segments excluded owing to calibration issues”: one of the three was this animal.

「校準片段長什麼樣子？」

“What does a calibration segment look like?”

蕭琪在同一台機器上找出一段 2018 年的。廠商工程師校準完，會在場地中央架一個轉盤，白色塑膠標靶一邊等速旋轉，一邊沿著轉臂往外滑，掃過整個場地，用來驗證追蹤精度。

Hsiao Chi found one from 2018 on the same machine. When the vendor’s engineer finished calibrating, he would set up a turntable in the centre of the arena; a white plastic target rotated at constant speed while sliding outwards along the arm, sweeping the whole arena, to verify tracking accuracy.

她把兩張軌跡圖並排。

She put the two track plots side by side.

縮到縮圖大小，兩條螺旋幾乎分不出來。放到全螢幕，標靶的線光滑、等距，一筆到底。小鼠的線上有結：停頓的地方，軌跡點擠成一團；嗅聞的地方，繞出一個個小圈；站起來的那幾秒，點停在原處，一動不動。

Shrunk to thumbnail size, the two spirals could barely be told apart. At full screen, the target’s line was smooth, evenly spaced, a single unbroken stroke. The mouse’s line had knots in it: where it had paused, the track points bunched into a clump; where it had sniffed, they wound into small loops; for the seconds it had stood up, the points stayed where they were, motionless.

他拿耳標號去查動物房的照護紀錄。3 月 1 日下午，照護員在備註欄打了一行：

He took the ear-tag number and looked up the animal facility’s care records. On the afternoon of 1 March a care technician had typed one line in the remarks field:

「B07 一隻持續繞圈，耳道無分泌物，翻正反射正常，續觀。」

“B07, one animal circling persistently; no discharge from ear canals; righting reflex normal; continue to observe.”

3 月 4 日：「繞圈消失。」

4 March: “Circling resolved.”

備註欄旁邊一行灰色小字：非結構化內容，不納入來源計算。

Beside the remarks field, a line of small grey type: unstructured content, not counted as a source.

他回到 S8 的明細，把「來源」那一項展開。

He went back to the S8 details and expanded the item marked “Sources”.

一月二十九日，加一個月。沒有經過任何日期函式庫，三個欄位拆開，月份進一，日期不動，再拼回去。日期欄的格式檢查只看四位數、兩位數、兩位數。

The twenty-ninth of January, plus one month. No date library had been involved: three fields pulled apart, the month carried forward by one, the day left alone, the pieces put back together. The format check on the date field looked only for four digits, two digits, two digits.

三封客服郵件，他一封一封開。1 月 29 日：已開單，將於一個月內安排到場。2 月 20 日：工程師排定 2 月 27 日。2 月 26 日：工程師臨時調派，改期另行通知。

Three support emails; he opened them one by one. 29 January: work order opened, a visit will be arranged within one month. 20 February: engineer scheduled for 27 February. 26 February: engineer reassigned at short notice, new date to follow.

附件裡那張排班表，是 2 月 20 日匯出的版本。

The roster in the attachments was the version exported on 20 February.

他拿儀器序號去院裡的採購紀錄搜，找到一張發票。開立日期 2019 年 4 月 11 日，品項「定期校準服務」，品項底下一行小字：服務日期 2019/04/09。

He searched the institute’s purchasing records by the instrument’s serial number and found an invoice. Date of issue 11 April 2019; item, “Periodic calibration service”; beneath the item, a line of small print: date of service 2019/04/09.

上一次校準是 2018 年 2 月 12 日，有效期一年。從 2019 年 2 月 12 日到 4 月 9 日，五十六天裡，陳其昌實驗室有五十八隻小鼠在這台機器上跑過。

The previous calibration had been on 12 February 2018, valid for one year. From 12 February to 9 April 2019, in those fifty-six days, fifty-eight mice from Chen Chi-chang’s laboratory had been run on this machine.

小周是陳其昌實驗室的技術員，那一批行為測試是他跑的。林彥在實驗室門口攔到他。

Chou was a technician in Chen Chi-chang’s laboratory; he had run that batch of behavioural tests. Lin Yen caught him at the laboratory door.

「那台追蹤系統，工程師是什麼時候來校準的，你記得嗎？」

“That tracking system—do you remember when the engineer came to calibrate it?”

「二月底吧。」小周答得很快，「系統裡有。」

“End of February, I think.” Chou answered quickly. “It’s in the system.”

林彥把發票給他看。

Lin Yen showed him the invoice.

小周盯著那行小字看了很久，掏出手機，把日曆滑回 2019 年 4 月，停在那一頁。

Chou stared at the line of small print for a long time, got out his phone, scrolled the calendar back to April 2019 and stopped on that page.

「四月？」他說。「……四月好像也對。那陣子一直下雨，工程師進來的時候鞋子是濕的。」

“April?” he said. “…April sounds right too, actually. It rained the whole time, around then. The engineer’s shoes were wet when he came in.”

「3 月 1 日那天，有一隻一直轉圈的，你有印象嗎？」

“On 1 March there was one that kept circling. Does that ring a bell?”

「那天是我跑的？」

“I ran that day?”

林彥給他看操作者欄位，上面是他的名字。

Lin Yen showed him the operator field. His name was in it.

小周點點頭，像在核對一件早就確定的事。「那應該是我。」他想了想，「轉圈的……不太記得了。那年跑太多隻。」

Chou nodded, as if checking off something settled long ago. “Then it must have been me.” He thought. “A circler… I don’t really remember. I ran too many that year.”

陳其昌接電話的時候在開車，聲音被路噪切成一段一段。

Chen Chi-chang was driving when he took the call; road noise chopped his voice into lengths.

「那個日期是平台補的，我知道。」他說，「去年投稿前它跑了一輪完整性檢查，跳出四十幾個空欄，每一個都附好來源跟建議說明，問我要不要套用。我全部按了套用。你信裡問的那句話，也是它給的。」

“That date was filled in by the platform. I know,” he said. “Before we submitted last year it ran an integrity check and threw up forty-odd blank fields, each with sources and a suggested explanation already attached, and asked whether I wanted to apply them. I clicked apply on all of them. The sentence you were asking about in your email was its as well.”

「建議說明是錯的。時鐘沒有跳。」

“The suggested explanation is wrong. The clock didn’t skip.”

那頭安靜了幾秒，只剩方向燈在響。

The line went quiet for a few seconds; only the indicator ticked.

「林老師，我實驗室十二個人。平台一個禮拜跟我要的欄位，比我一年寫的論文字數還多。」他停了一下，「你說錯，那就改。要我簽什麼，傳給我。」

“Dr Lin, I have twelve people in my lab. The platform asks me for more fields in a week than I write words of papers in a year.” He paused. “If you say it’s wrong, we correct it. Whatever you need me to sign, send it over.”

主編聽完，把 K-17 的資料集拉出來，暫時排除那五十八隻，跑了一次敏感度分析。進度條不到一分鐘就跑完了。

The editor-in-chief heard him out, pulled up the K-17 dataset, provisionally excluded the fifty-eight animals and ran a sensitivity analysis. The progress bar finished in under a minute.

「效應量從 0.41 掉到 0.36，p 值還在 0.01 以下。」她把螢幕轉過來，「拿掉它們，結論還是撐得住。」

“Effect size drops from 0.41 to 0.36; p is still below 0.01.” She turned the screen towards him. “Take them out and the conclusion still holds.”

「日期是錯的。」

“The date is wrong.”

「推定規則有 bug，不會只有這一篇，我開工單給平台。陳其昌照抄建議說明，我發信提醒他。」

“If the inference rule has a bug, it won’t be only this paper. I’ll file a ticket with the platform. Chen Chi-chang copied the suggested explanation word for word; I’ll send him a reminder.”

他把手機裡那段錄影放給她看。她看得比他預期的久。

He played her the recording on his phone. She watched it for longer than he had expected.

「一隻，」她說，「沒有對照，五年前，三天後就好了。你要我在更正啟事裡寫什麼？」

“One animal,” she said. “No control, five years ago, fine again three days later. What would you have me write in the correction notice?”

他沒有答。

He did not answer.

「你要提研究誠信辦公室，程序在那裡，我不攔你。」

“If you want to take it to the Research Integrity Office, the procedure exists. I won’t stop you.”

當天晚上他提交了舉報，能附的都附上：推定規則、三封郵件、發票、移籠紀錄、照護備註、兩張並排的軌跡圖，還有手機那段錄影。送出後，附件清單第七項旁邊多了一個灰色標記：個人裝置錄影，來源鏈不完整，不納入計算。

That evening he filed the report and attached everything that could be attached: the inference rule, the three emails, the invoice, the cage-transfer record, the care remarks, the two track plots side by side, and the recording from his phone. After he submitted, a grey flag appeared beside item seven in the attachment list: personal-device recording, incomplete chain of provenance, not counted.

案件編號：RIC-2024-088。

Case number: RIC-2024-088.

舉報後第二天傍晚，誠信辦公室寄來一份澄清問卷，十二題，下週一中午截止。他把信標了星號，打算週末再寫。

On the evening of the second day after the report, the Integrity Office sent a clarification questionnaire: twelve questions, due at noon the following Monday. He starred the email and meant to do it at the weekend.

週六晚上，他在改那篇拖了一年的方法學綜述。寫作助理照例隔一陣子就在螢幕角落冒出來，問要不要補文獻、要不要整理段落。過了凌晨兩點，又冒出一個：

On Saturday night he was revising the methods review that had dragged on for a year. As usual the writing assistant surfaced in the corner of the screen every so often, asking whether he wanted references added, paragraphs tidied. Past two in the morning, another one surfaced:

他按掉它，繼續寫。

He dismissed it and went on writing.

週一早上，初步評估送到。

On Monday morning the preliminary assessment arrived.

他把第三條讀了兩遍，打開那份管理規範，翻到 7.3。條文是 2016 年訂的。

He read the third point twice, opened the regulations and turned to 7.3. The article dated from 2016.

他回到 S8 的明細。最上面一行還是那一行：完整性缺口：S7－校準日期。

He went back to the S8 details. The top line was still the same line: Integrity gap: S7 – calibration date.

第四條那句話，他沒有寫過。

The sentence in point four: he had never written it.

問卷的送出紀錄是週日凌晨兩點十四分，送出者：助理（代理），附使用者電子簽章。十二題都答了，答得很周到。第四題那一句，是他寫信時的口氣。

The questionnaire’s submission record read 2.14 on Sunday morning; submitted by: assistant (proxy), with the user’s electronic signature attached. All twelve questions had been answered, and answered thoughtfully. The sentence under question four had the tone he used in his emails.

他點開自己的授權頁。

He opened his own authorisations page.

他記得自己按掉一個視窗。按的是哪一個鍵，他想不起來。

He remembered dismissing a window. Which button he had pressed, he could not recall.

他又讀了一次第四題。舉報的時候，他確實不知道有 7.3 條。

He read question four again. When he filed the report, it was true, he had not known Article 7.3 existed.

誠信辦公室的承辦人很年輕，桌上擺著三個沒喝完的咖啡杯。

The case officer at the Integrity Office was very young; three unfinished cups of coffee stood on her desk.

「可以更正，兩次回覆都會留著。」她說，「不過結論不會變，前面三點都成立。」

“You can correct it. Both responses stay on file,” she said. “The conclusion won’t change, though. The first three points all stand.”

他還是填了更正：問卷係助理代為填寫，第四題非本人意見。

He filled in the correction anyway: the questionnaire was completed by the assistant on my behalf; the answer to question four is not my own view.

承辦人按下送出。「收到了。」

The case officer pressed submit. “Received.”

週三，S8 出了第二版。

On Wednesday, S8 came out in a second version.

他一欄一欄對過去：日期、來源、發票號碼、更正說明。沒有一欄是錯的。2 月 29 日不見了。

He checked it field by field: date, source, invoice number, correction note. Not one field was wrong. The twenty-ninth of February was gone.

同一天下午，V-20190301-14 重新評估完畢。

That same afternoon, the re-evaluation of V-20190301-14 was completed.

「時間鄰近校準事件」那一條拿掉了，其餘照舊。

The item “temporal proximity to calibration event” had been removed. The rest stood as before.

他的審計報告已經替他填好。

His audit report had already been filled in for him.

他點開「審計員意見」，開始打字。

He opened “Auditor’s comments” and began to type.

「V-20190301-14 不是校準片段，也不是雜訊。照護紀錄顯示牠健康，牠的軌跡有停頓、有嗅聞、有站立。這是一隻活的動物，在做一件我們沒有分類可放的事。把牠排除——」

“V-20190301-14 is not a calibration segment, and it is not noise either. The care records show the animal was healthy; its track has pauses, sniffing, rearing. This is a living animal doing something we have no category for. To exclude it—“

右側的助理面板亮起來。

The assistant panel on the right lit up.

他按了「預覽」。優化版本填進意見欄，把他的草稿換掉了。

He pressed “Preview”. The optimised version filled the comments field and replaced his draft.

他逐句對著紀錄看。影像編號、規律度、照護紀錄，每一句都查得到。照護員那行備註，在他的草稿裡只占半句，在這裡成了一筆有出處的事實。

He checked it against the records sentence by sentence. Video number, regularity, care records: every sentence could be traced. The care technician’s remark, which had taken up half a sentence in his draft, had here become a fact with a source.

他把那段整個選起來，刪掉。

He selected the whole passage and deleted it.

游標在空欄裡閃。他打了一行：

The cursor blinked in the empty field. He typed one line:

「V-20190301-14 是一段行為，不是校準。」

“V-20190301-14 is a behaviour, not a calibration.”

面板跳出一行字：無來源主張 1 處。

A line appeared on the panel: unsourced claims, 1 instance.

他在底下補上：

Beneath it he added:

「照護紀錄（2019-03-01）：耳道無分泌物，翻正反射正常。」

“Care record (2019-03-01): no discharge from ear canals; righting reflex normal.”

面板：來源 1 項｜無來源主張 1 處｜預估覆核通過率 9%。

The panel: Sources, 1 | Unsourced claims, 1 instance | Estimated review pass rate 9%.

他去找第一行的出處。照護備註寫的是耳朵。軌跡圖上只有座標。蕭琪那句「牠很穩」沒有寫在任何地方。手機那段錄影，在卷宗裡掛著灰色標記。

He went looking for a source for the first line. The care remark was about ears. The track plot held nothing but coordinates. Hsiao Chi’s “This one’s steady” was not written down anywhere. The recording from his phone hung in the case file under a grey flag.

他把游標移到第一行末尾，按住退格鍵。「不是校準」先退掉，接著是「是一段行為」，停在編號後面。

He moved the cursor to the end of the first line and held down backspace. “not a calibration” went first, then “is a behaviour”, and it stopped after the number.

欄位裡剩下一個編號，一筆照護紀錄。

In the field there remained one number and one care record.

面板：無來源主張 0 處｜語意不完整｜預估覆核通過率 61%。

The panel: Unsourced claims, 0 | Semantically incomplete | Estimated review pass rate 61%.

他的視線從欄位移到面板，又移回來。

His gaze moved from the field to the panel, and back again.

他把這兩行也刪掉，按了「採用優化版本」，然後按送出。

He deleted those two lines as well, pressed “Adopt optimised version”, and then pressed submit.

頁面頂端的指標列跳了一下。

The metrics bar at the top of the page ticked.

第二天早上，蕭琪在地下一樓等他。米色機殼的工作站開著，廠商軟體停在 2019 年 3 月 1 日那一頁，軌跡縮圖一格一格排著。加密碟擱在鍵盤旁邊。

The next morning Hsiao Chi was waiting for him on basement level one. The beige workstation was on; the vendor software sat at the page for 1 March 2019, the track thumbnails laid out square by square. The encrypted drive lay beside the keyboard.

「審計狀態完成了。」她說，「保全解除，今天就同步。清掉以後要看，得跟院裡申請調檔，調回來還得裝回這台。」她頓了一下，「這台明年報廢。」

“Audit status is complete,” she said. “The hold’s released, so I sync today. Once it’s wiped, if anyone wants to look they’ll have to apply to the institute to retrieve the file, and then it has to be loaded back onto this machine.” She paused. “This machine’s being scrapped next year.”

第十四格還在那裡，比別格乾淨，一圈一圈往外。

The fourteenth square was still there, cleaner than the others, circling outwards ring by ring.

他拿起加密碟。院產標籤的一角翹起來了，他用拇指把它壓平，把碟子放回鍵盤旁邊，放正。

He picked up the encrypted drive. One corner of the institute property label had lifted; he pressed it flat with his thumb and put the drive back beside the keyboard, squarely.

「可以。」他說。

“All right,” he said.