You just testified that you issued a correction to your email. The story that you've told today doesn't add up, just like the two emails that you've sent don't add up. You're saying two contradictory things: that you only report the info that you receive but, on July 25, you arrived at a conclusion on your own, absent the other information.
If the subject matter experts told you in June that the head of mission, to use your words, was “providing the greenlight for the selection of the new residence”, if that's what the experts told you and if you're just air traffic control and you just landed the information in the document, well, where did the new information come from? This is what doesn't make sense.
Which subject matter expert told you on July 25, the day after a standing committee of the House of Commons launched an investigation into this $9-million condo, that Mr. Clark didn't have anything to do with it? What is the name?