I returned to work today after a week of forgetting about work. Nothing much had changed. I think I was one of the many who'd taken the week off - being school holidays. I know a number of my colleagues had been on leave.
There was only one phone-mail message left for me. Switching the answering message over to "I'm on holidays. Phone someone who cares," obviously worked a charm. (Ok, I lied about the second sentence. My message actually tells the caller how to connect back to the reception desk.)
My unread email total was countable with fingers and toes. This was very helpful, since I can't use head-hair for additional counters. Of course, among the few handfuls (and footfuls) there had to be one that demanded immediate attention - a proposal document. No, not a proposal for marriage. It was a proposal by a group of my engineers for a mathematical correction to fix a hardware problem in one of our instruments.
The proposal acknowledged input from all of our engineering and chemistry disciplines. It then went on to describe a distorted calibration of logarithms, exponentials and fudge factors that maintained or improved instrument performance and made the numbers exactly meet the test specifications. There was only one flaw. How could they have missed it? The effect on linearity would be horrendous. Why didn't they discuss this with me before sending the document out to managers and engineering staff? Didn't they realise how their simplistic error would make the complicated maths look ridiculous? The problem had to be fixed in hardware. Any other approach would just be fudging the numbers. It's like saying "Yes officer, I know I was speeding but if you divide my speed by 2 then I'm just under the speed limit."
I went to speak with one of the engineers involved, knowing that the guy who had sent the proposal was now on leave. I asked if he knew much about the proposal.
He laughed.
Then I realised. Only a couple of hours back at work and I was starting to take things too seriously. The proposal had no actual names in it, only acknowledgement of departments and groups. It addressed all the relevant instrument performance measures except linearity - conspicuous by its absence. I had taken the bait.
Just deserts. I'm still chuckling at how easily I let myself believe it.