A consultant involved in KPMG’s whistleblower-related review acknowledges that the report contains “gaps,” after finding that key people were not interviewed and that there are no records of certain crucial meetings.
The outlets report that the consultant’s admissions point to limitations in how the review was conducted and documented, raising questions about the completeness of the findings. According to the accounts, the absence of interview notes and meeting records means some aspects of the whistleblower failings were not fully captured in the report.
While the sources agree on the core issues—missing interviews and missing meeting documentation—they differ mainly in how they describe the scope of the “comprehensive” review and the extent to which those omissions affect interpretation. All three outlets, however, frame the consultant’s admission as central to explaining why the report falls short of what might be expected for a full assessment of the whistleblower shortcomings.
