I'm still fundamentally opposed to this, for a couple of reasons. There is an historical context here that needs to be captured, and it needs to be on the record and it needs to be in the institutional memory.
If for no other reason, there will likely be a follow-up audit done in about two and a half years, and there needs to be a basis for comparison to see if the recommendations have been implemented, if the action plan has been implemented, and what changes there have been.
That's the proper place for it, to do a follow-up audit in the next two or two and a half years. But this has to stand, because this is an historical record, and it has to be put on the historical record.