Me:Yes.
Mara:She challenged my attribution model in a footnote at BSides last year. Politely. Brutally. Correctly.
Me:Then you already respect her.
Mara:I respect anyone who tells me I am wrong with math instead of feelings.
Me:Introduce us after your Shell Games session.
Mara:Why?
Me:Because I need her to listen to me.
Mara:Then earn it.
I let out a low laugh.
Me:I intend to.
Another pause.
Mara:I can add you as a late participant in the 9:30 closed roundtable. Financial threat attribution. She may attend if I tell her it’s worth her time. After my session, I can introduce you. But if this is some private-sector recruitment nonsense, I will make you regret wasting my goodwill.
Me:It is not recruitment.
Mara:And if she asks me whether she should trust you?
My fingers stilled over the keys.
I should type no.
That was the honest answer, but I couldn’t give that one.
Me:Tell her I am useful.
Mara:That sounds much more honest.
Me:It usually is.
Mara:Fine. I’ll make the introduction if the moment feels organic. I will not force it.
Me:I would expect nothing less.
Mara:Yes, you would. That is why I said it.
The channel went silent.
A short while later, I had a speaking slot.
Officially, I was an invited participant in a closed roundtable titled Attribution Under Adversarial Noise, which was the sort of title that guaranteed everyone in attendance would have either an actual contribution or a personality disorder. Possibly both. I would not present long. Five minutes, maybe seven. Enough to be visible. Enough to give Kit a reason to know my name before Mara spoke it.
I chose the subject carefully.
I would speak about false positives in hostile infrastructure: how skilled independent actors could be mistaken for internal adversaries when working near criminal financial networks. General. Professional. Relevant enough to make her lean in. Not specific enough to expose either of us.
I wrote the talk in twenty minutes.
Then I spent two hours removing everything that sounded like I knew her, which was much harder.