Three mastheads report they have asked a former detective to analyse evidence related to Victoria’s “Big Build” program and alleged wrongdoing. The articles present the detective’s role as reviewing what the publications have uncovered, framing the task as an assessment of claims about whether procurement or contracting arrangements involved major rorting or misconduct. Across the outlets, the central shared element is the commissioning of an expert review rather than publication of a new, single set of official findings. The reporting describes the review as “evidence” that will be examined for relevance and implications, but the provided excerpts do not detail specific projects, dollar amounts, or particular alleged breaches. The three sources carry the same headline and description, indicating the analysis is part of a coordinated feature or follow-up package focused on the program’s contracting and oversight. The articles therefore converge on the existence of the expert review and the broader allegation that the “Big Build” may involve large-scale improper conduct, while withholding additional specifics in the supplied text.