But the chairwoman understood that investigations were not entertainment.
The facts needed to be established carefully.
Meanwhile, the hotel chairman issued a statement through his representatives.
He described the dinner as a private commercial disagreement.
He expressed regret that his remarks might have caused offense.
Then insisted that his hotel group remained committed to cultural understanding and excellent hospitality.
The chairwoman read the statement.
She noticed the phrase might have caused offense.
It avoided acknowledging what he'd actually said.
But she didn't respond publicly.
Instead, she continued asking questions.
Who recorded the video?
Who edited it?
How did it leave the private dining room?
And why did the clip begin at precisely the point where the chairwoman revealed her authority?
The security review uncovered something unexpected.
The video did not come from the restaurant's internal cameras.
It came from a personal device.
One of the hotel chairman's accompanying executives had recorded part of the meeting.
The device had been placed near a water glass.
The executive later acknowledged taking the video but denied distributing it publicly.
He said he intended to preserve a record of the dispute.
That explanation was possible.
But the edited clip had reached an account connected to a media consultant who had worked on campaigns for the hotel group.
The relationship did not establish who authorized publication.
Still, it gave investigators a direction to examine.
The chairwoman requested that any relevant communications be preserved.
Then she called the youngest executive from the dinner.
He answered from Tokyo.
His voice sounded cautious.
"Madam Chairwoman."
"Thank you for taking my call."
"Of course."
She asked whether he would be willing to discuss the recording through counsel.
He hesitated.
Then said something surprising.
"I was going to contact you."
She became still.
"About what?"
"The agreement."
She waited.
The executive lowered his voice.
"I found an email that doesn't match the timeline we've been given."
The chairwoman sat straighter.
"What kind of email?"
He explained.
Three weeks before the dinner, a senior hotel adviser had requested that the equity appendix be prepared for execution.
The message included a statement claiming that the restaurant group's controlling shareholder had already agreed in principle.
The young executive found that strange.
He had attended the earlier negotiations.
The chairwoman had explicitly objected to the equity provisions.
He remembered the discussion.
The hotel adviser, however, acted as though the issue were settled.
The young executive had assumed additional negotiations occurred without him.
After the dinner, he reviewed the correspondence.
Then discovered that the message referred to a memorandum he had never seen.
He contacted the hotel group's legal department.
No one could immediately locate an approved copy.
The chairwoman listened carefully.
"Do you have the original email?"
"Yes."
"Has it been preserved?"
"Yes."
She nodded.