By midday on day ten, the community hall had been rearranged around one long table. Asha placed four Safina Afya packages on it, two shelf cards, a printed timeline and a one-page FAQ. There were no banners calling the brand a scam and no photographs designed to turn Kelvin into a villain.
Kelvin arrived with Brenda five minutes before the session began. He looked at the more than twenty registered attendees.
“I understood this would be a small technical meeting.”
Tessa answered, “It is a consumer comparison session. No open livestream.”
Juma called from the back, “We wanted one.”
“And we agreed not to stream without the consent of every speaker,” Asha said.
Zuri opened the session by writing three words on the whiteboard:
**CLAIM**
**IMPRESSION**
**QUESTION**
“We will not mix these,” she said. “A claim is what was stated. An impression is what a consumer understood. A question is a gap that still needs an answer. This is not a ruling on product safety, criminal conduct or legality.”
Asha began with the package variants. She showed the old and newer wording, print identifiers and the unchanged SKU on her invoices. Then she placed the old and new campaign cards beside them.
She did not call the newer wording an admission or correction. She asked a narrower question: why had retail communication and package versions overlapped without clear version guidance to retailers?
Kelvin took the microphone.
“Packaging refreshes happen regularly. The formula did not change. Quality controls remained in place.”
“We are not saying the formula changed,” Asha replied.
“Public discussion has sometimes left that impression.”
“That is why our statement explicitly said we had no evidence of a safety defect.”
Kelvin nodded. “We accept that package variants existed. We do not accept the conclusion that the company intended to mislead consumers.”
Asha said, “I do not need you to accept motive.”
The room became quiet.
“I need us to look at outcome and process. Retailers had campaign language, shelf placement and package versions that did not create one clear message at the same time.”
Brenda pointed out that retailers had also added their own language.
“Mti Market did,” Asha said. “Our local card is in the evidence. That is exactly why the remedy cannot be ‘company bad, retailer innocent.’ Retailer guidance is part of the system.”
Juma raised his hand. “But the variants entered upstream too. The depot review showed overlap.”
Asha read only the approved joint summary: within the reviewed accounts, cartons associated with different package variants moved through overlapping delivery periods under the same SKU and campaign code.
Kelvin called that a normal packaging transition.
“It may be,” Asha said. “Then what guidance does a retailer receive during a normal transition?”
That question began to shift the session.
One consumer asked why the *Whole-Grain Choice* card could remain on a shelf while package wording changed.
Kelvin said the company could not prove every retailer removed old materials on time.
“Then who owned version control?” Asha asked.
Brenda wrote the question down.
Leah read her own statement. She repeated that she had never alleged poison or danger. Her complaint was about the combined meaning of shelf, price and package.
Martin did not attend, but his consented statement was read. His photograph of the kiosk near a clinic entrance was shown with a large disclaimer: **NO CLAIM OF CLINIC ENDORSEMENT. CONTEXT ONLY.**
When someone in the audience called the placement “obvious medical positioning,” Asha corrected the person herself.
“That is your impression. Do not turn it into a fact of endorsement.”
Kelvin watched her for several seconds.
The session then moved to sales coaching. Asha did not name Sifa. She said Imara had reviewed a consented worker statement describing target pressure and health-oriented shelf positioning. No unauthorized internal deck had been used.
Kelvin said he could not respond to an anonymous allegation.
Tessa clarified that the source was known to Imara but protected by attribution limits.
Asha asked a question instead of reading a sensational quote: “Did company coaching ever encourage reps to establish a health-oriented impression first and move to technical detail when asked?”
“I do not have the training deck here,” Kelvin said.
“Then answer it in writing.”
A consumer asked, “Why not simply write on the front what you want us to understand?”
Brenda explained that packaging was constrained by space, standards and approval processes.
Zuri responded that clarity could still be improved through product descriptors, information hierarchy and retailer guidance.
After almost two hours, Kelvin took the microphone again.
“I will accept one point,” he said. “Even if our intent was not to mislead, and even if individual package statements were designed to comply, our rollout did not control consumer interpretation well enough across the package transition and retail materials.”
The room stirred.
Juma said, “That is what we have been saying.”
Kelvin raised a hand. “I did not say fraud. I did not say illegal labeling. I said there is a communication gap that can be corrected.”
Asha answered, “That is enough to begin a remedy.”
She asked for dates, revised retailer guidance, a consumer remedy and version control—not an instant confession.
Kelvin agreed to provide a written remediation plan within five calendar days and an interim retailer notice within forty-eight hours.
Asha handed him the marker.
“Write it.”
Kelvin stands at the whiteboard and writes the date: “Five days. You will have the remediation plan in writing.”
---