By the end of the week, twelve former drivers had produced evidence that they had complained before the storm ever happened.<\/p>\n
Twelve.<\/p>\n
Some had emailed HR.<\/p>\n
Two had called an ethics hotline.<\/p>\n
One had filed a written grievance after losing a dedicated route.<\/p>\n
Another had submitted screenshots showing Victor threatening to reduce assignments after an hours-of-service refusal.<\/p>\n
Every complaint was different.<\/p>\n
The destination was almost always the same.<\/p>\n
Regional review.<\/p>\n
Leonard\u2019s organization.<\/p>\n
The system had not lacked warnings.<\/p>\n
It had lacked somewhere safe for those warnings to land.<\/p>\n
Rachel placed the complaint-routing chart on the table during another meeting.<\/p>\n
Boxes.<\/p>\n
Arrows.<\/p>\n
Departments.<\/p>\n
Names.<\/p>\n
It looked complicated enough to impress anyone who did not understand what it meant.<\/p>\n
I pointed at the center.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo everything goes here?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHistorically, most operating complaints were delegated back to the region.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEven complaints about the region.\u201d<\/p>\n
Naomi nodded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is the weakness.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s more than a weakness.\u201d<\/p>\n
David was sitting across from me.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was designed to resolve issues at the lowest appropriate level.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSounds efficient.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt usually is.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cUnless the lowest level is the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n
He did not argue.<\/p>\n
Julian was not present this time.<\/p>\n
Hayes Tech had signed.<\/p>\n
This meeting belonged to Apex.<\/p>\n
For some reason, that made me trust it more.<\/p>\n
Not because Apex had earned complete trust.<\/p>\n
Because there was no customer in the room to impress.<\/p>\n
Rebecca tapped the chart.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe revised system sends safety-retaliation complaints outside the operational reporting line.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWho gets them?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIndependent compliance intake.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cCorporate?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd if corporate ignores it?\u201d<\/p>\n
Naomi answered.<\/p>\n
\u201cCases remain auditable and report automatically to the board committee if unresolved beyond set deadlines.\u201d<\/p>\n
I looked at her.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo nobody can just leave it in an inbox.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is the intention.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIntention.\u201d<\/p>\n
She caught the skepticism.<\/p>\n
\u201cFair.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel said, \u201cEvery complaint gets a case number visible to the employee.\u201d<\/p>\n
That was better.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf Danny had that?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe could have seen when his report stalled.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd who had it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
David shifted.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re also discussing anonymous reporting.\u201d<\/p>\n
Elliot would like that.<\/p>\n
I said so.<\/p>\n
Rachel smiled.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe already sent me six suggestions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe refused the panel.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe calls them \u2018ideas from someone who is absolutely not on the panel.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds like him.\u201d<\/p>\n
David did not smile.<\/p>\n
He was reading the compensation projections.<\/p>\n
The number had grown.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow many now?\u201d I asked.<\/p>\n
Rebecca knew what I meant.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne hundred twelve verified affected drivers.\u201d<\/p>\n
My chest tightened.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn one region?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAcross the regional program.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cCurrent and former?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFinal number?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of course not.<\/p>\n
I looked at David.<\/p>\n
\u201cStill worried about the cost of safeguards?\u201d<\/p>\n
He met my eyes.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow I\u2019m worried about the cost of not having them.\u201d<\/p>\n
That was probably the smartest thing I had heard him say.<\/p>\n
Naomi turned to the next issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cHistorical customer records.\u201d<\/p>\n
Julian\u2019s discovery had opened another branch of the review.<\/p>\n
Apex had supplied customer-facing service summaries that sometimes described drivers with safety disputes as unavailable, inconsistent or restricted.<\/p>\n
Those descriptions had affected dedicated-lane selections.<\/p>\n
Customer preferences.<\/p>\n
Eligibility.<\/p>\n
Not always intentionally.<\/p>\n
But the result was the same.<\/p>\n
Danielle joined that meeting remotely.<\/p>\n
She appeared on the screen from a plain office with white walls.<\/p>\n
\u201cCan customers see the corrections?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n
Naomi answered.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere a prior inaccurate driver-specific record was sent to a customer, we will issue a correction.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWith my name?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, with your consent.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI consent.\u201d<\/p>\n
Her answer was immediate.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat will it say?\u201d<\/p>\n
Naomi read a draft.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe prior classification did not appropriately distinguish a documented safety-related refusal from service-performance conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n
Danielle frowned.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds like a machine apologized.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel coughed to hide a laugh.<\/p>\n
Naomi smiled despite herself.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat would you prefer?\u201d<\/p>\n
Danielle leaned closer to the camera.<\/p>\n
\u201cSay the company reported my safety complaint as a performance problem and that was wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n
Silence.<\/p>\n
David shifted again.<\/p>\n
Naomi typed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is clearer.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cClear is good.\u201d<\/p>\n
I smiled.<\/p>\n
Danielle saw me.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou agree, Marcus?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAlways dangerous to disagree with you.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSmart.\u201d<\/p>\n
The call continued.<\/p>\n
By the end, the correction language was simpler.<\/p>\n
Apex had misclassified certain safety-related actions.<\/p>\n
The records were being corrected.<\/p>\n
Affected customers would be notified.<\/p>\n
Not elegant.<\/p>\n
But true.<\/p>\n
Afterward, Rachel caught me near the door.<\/p>\n
\u201cPanel.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou just participated in a policy meeting for two hours.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat was an ambush.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou gave twelve suggestions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI was trapped.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou rewrote customer correction language.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDanielle did.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou supported it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom captivity.\u201d<\/p>\n
She laughed.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou are on the panel whether you like the word.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI will quit.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou do not work for the panel.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen I am already free.\u201d<\/p>\n
I escaped before she could answer.<\/p>\n
At the dispatch counter, Denise waved me over.<\/p>\n
\u201cI got my claim number.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cGood.\u201d<\/p>\n
She showed me the email.<\/p>\n
Independent portal.<\/p>\n
Case status.<\/p>\n
Submitted evidence.<\/p>\n
Exactly the things the old process had lacked.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow does it feel?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTerrible.\u201d<\/p>\n
That surprised me.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause I listed everything I did for Victor.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou had to.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI know.\u201d<\/p>\n
She closed the message.<\/p>\n
\u201cI told them about schedule changes. Login sharing. Warnings I typed.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat matters.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI might get disciplined.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cProbably.\u201d<\/p>\n
Her eyebrows lifted.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou are terrible at reassurance.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI told you to tell the truth, not to expect a parade.\u201d<\/p>\n
She actually laughed.<\/p>\n
Then she became serious.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you think I deserve to keep my job?\u201d<\/p>\n
I did not answer immediately.<\/p>\n
That question was larger than anything I had authority to decide.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think they should judge what you did and why you did it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds like a lawyer.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI hate that.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou\u2019ve spent too much time with Naomi.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDefinitely.\u201d<\/p>\n
I picked up my route packet.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhatever happens, don\u2019t lie now to protect what you did then.\u201d<\/p>\n
She nodded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat I understand.\u201d<\/p>\n
The next development came from Danny.<\/p>\n
He had not found another recording.<\/p>\n
He had found people.<\/p>\n
His old group chat still existed.<\/p>\n
Most of the drivers had scattered across carriers in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Kentucky.<\/p>\n
Danny contacted all of them.<\/p>\n
Of course he did.<\/p>\n
Within two days, compliance received statements from seven former employees who remembered Leonard\u2019s meeting.<\/p>\n
Five independently recalled some version of the phrase \u201cdemonstrate cooperation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Three remembered asking whether equipment objections would count against drivers.<\/p>\n
One had written notes.<\/p>\n
Her name was Priya Carter.<\/p>\n
I remembered her.<\/p>\n
Quiet.<\/p>\n
Precise.<\/p>\n
Always carried a spiral notebook.<\/p>\n
She had kept that notebook.<\/p>\n
When Rebecca showed me the scanned page, I recognized Priya\u2019s neat handwriting immediately.<\/p>\n
November 17.<\/p>\n
Leonard: repeated safety disputes = operational reliability concern.<\/p>\n
Priority routes require \u201ccooperation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ask HR whether legal?<\/p>\n
That last line hurt.<\/p>\n
Priya had recognized the problem in the room.<\/p>\n
Years before corporate did.<\/p>\n
\u201cDid she ask HR?\u201d I said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd?\u201d<\/p>\n
Rebecca turned another page.<\/p>\n
Email.<\/p>\n
Priya had asked whether route reductions following safety objections could be considered retaliation.<\/p>\n
The HR response advised her to discuss concerns with her direct management chain.<\/p>\n
Victor.<\/p>\n
Again.<\/p>\n
Back to the source.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhere is Priya now?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWisconsin.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDriving?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNot anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy?\u201d<\/p>\n
Rebecca hesitated.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe left commercial driving.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause of Apex?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cShe says Apex contributed.\u201d<\/p>\n
I looked away.<\/p>\n
Some losses could not be calculated from payroll.<\/p>\n
A driver who changed careers.<\/p>\n
A family that moved.<\/p>\n
A person who stopped trusting themselves.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow do you compensate that?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou don\u2019t fully.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rebecca\u2019s answer was quiet.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou correct what can be corrected.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat sounds insufficient.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is.\u201d<\/p>\n
I appreciated that she did not pretend otherwise.<\/p>\n
The following Monday, Apex formally announced the independent claims administrator.<\/p>\n
Current and former workers received instructions.<\/p>\n
A separate hotline opened.<\/p>\n
An outside labor-compliance firm would review disputed losses.<\/p>\n
Corporate management could provide records but could not control individual determinations.<\/p>\n
David hated that part.<\/p>\n
I could tell because he described it as \u201cexpensive.\u201d<\/p>\n
Naomi described it as \u201cnecessary.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel described it as \u201coverdue.\u201d<\/p>\n
Elliot described it as \u201csomebody finally taking the keys away from the people who wrecked the truck.\u201d<\/p>\n
His phrase spread through the terminal in two hours.<\/p>\n
The mood among drivers changed slowly.<\/p>\n
At first, people had whispered.<\/p>\n
Now they talked openly.<\/p>\n
Not recklessly.<\/p>\n
But differently.<\/p>\n
A younger driver named Miguel told Denise he would not take a trailer with exposed cord on one tire.<\/p>\n
Six months earlier, he might have worried about losing miles.<\/p>\n
Now he said, \u201cWrite it as safety.\u201d<\/p>\n
Denise did.<\/p>\n
Maintenance replaced the tire.<\/p>\n
Nobody punished him.<\/p>\n
It should have been ordinary.<\/p>\n
That was the point.<\/p>\n
I watched the repair from the fuel island.<\/p>\n
Elliot walked over.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou see that?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYeah.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cKid didn\u2019t shake once.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cShould he?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
He sipped coffee.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s why it matters.\u201d<\/p>\n
I nodded.<\/p>\n
Not the emails.<\/p>\n
Not the meetings.<\/p>\n
That.<\/p>\n
A driver seeing bad rubber and saying no without calculating rent.<\/p>\n
Two days later, Rachel called me into her office.<\/p>\n
Victor\u2019s old office had become hers temporarily.<\/p>\n
She still had not put her name on the door.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat now?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDenise\u2019s disciplinary review.\u201d<\/p>\n
My stomach tightened.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhy are you telling me?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause you were named in part of her conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not deciding anything.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cGood.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel closed the file.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe admitted changing schedules under Victor\u2019s direction, sharing credentials and drafting notices she knew were misleading.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s serious.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cShe also preserved messages, voluntarily disclosed the attempted login, cooperated fully and documented pressure from Victor.\u201d<\/p>\n
I waited.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are issuing a final warning and removing her from any role with unilateral scheduling authority for six months.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cShe keeps her job.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow does she feel?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou can ask her.\u201d<\/p>\n
I stood.<\/p>\n
Then Rachel said, \u201cMarcus.\u201d<\/p>\n
I turned.<\/p>\n
\u201cVictor appealed his termination.\u201d<\/p>\n
I had almost forgotten that was possible.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat happens?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cInternal review.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cCan he come back?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTechnically, an appeal can reverse discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n
My stomach tightened.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you think it will?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not predicting.\u201d<\/p>\n
Good answer.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is he arguing?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat the regional program authorized route restrictions.\u201d<\/p>\n
That was clever.<\/p>\n
Not innocence.<\/p>\n
Permission.<\/p>\n
I sat again.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe\u2019s going to blame Leonard.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cPartly.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd the altered documents?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe says local administrative practices were informal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe forged signature?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe still denies forging it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe notebook?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe admits it but says it tracked an existing regional policy.\u201d<\/p>\n
I understood the strategy.<\/p>\n
If the policy had been sanctioned above him, he could argue he had merely enforced it.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat about calling Denise to delete files?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe says he asked her to remove duplicates.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOf course.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rachel nodded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe appeal is being reviewed independently.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWho?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOutside employment counsel.\u201d<\/p>\n
At least not Apex.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSoon.\u201d<\/p>\n
I left angry again.<\/p>\n
Not because Victor had the right to appeal.<\/p>\n
He did.<\/p>\n
Because part of his defense contained truth.<\/p>\n
The regional system existed.<\/p>\n
Leonard had promoted it.<\/p>\n
Victor had not invented every ugly piece.<\/p>\n
The question was whether he had merely participated\u2014or had knowingly made it worse.<\/p>\n
That evening, Rebecca called.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found something related to the appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe original PR training materials.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThey set limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
My stomach tightened.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat limits?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cManagers were explicitly told not to use safety complaints alone as grounds for route restriction.\u201d<\/p>\n
I stood straighter.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo Leonard knew?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe training says disputes had to be independently verified as bad-faith or repeated unjustified refusals.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd Victor\u2019s notebook?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDid not follow that standard.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe punished the complaint itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIn multiple documented cases.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo his appeal\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWill have to address that.\u201d<\/p>\n
I almost smiled.<\/p>\n
Then Rebecca continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut there is more.\u201d<\/p>\n
Of course.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe also found evidence Leonard knew Victor was ignoring the verification requirement.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEighteen months ago.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHow?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAn audit.\u201d<\/p>\n
I stopped.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was already an audit?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cA small one.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat happened?\u201d<\/p>\n
She exhaled.<\/p>\n
\u201cLeonard closed it.\u201d<\/p>\n
My anger returned instantly.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn what basis?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe wrote that Victor had been coached and no further action was required.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWas he coached?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found no formal documentation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDid Victor stop?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYou know the answer.\u201d<\/p>\n
Yes.<\/p>\n
The names continued.<\/p>\n
The routes continued disappearing.<\/p>\n
The notebook continued filling.<\/p>\n
I sat at the kitchen table while Sarah listened from across the room.<\/p>\n
Rebecca said, \u201cThis is important because it shows an opportunity to intervene.\u201d<\/p>\n
An opportunity.<\/p>\n
Eighteen months before the storm.<\/p>\n
Before Danielle left.<\/p>\n
Before more drivers lost work.<\/p>\n
Before Victor wrote my name again.<\/p>\n
Leonard had seen enough to ask questions.<\/p>\n
Then closed the file.<\/p>\n
When I hung up, Sarah sat beside me.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat?\u201d<\/p>\n
I told her.<\/p>\n
She stared at the table.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo somebody did notice.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYeah.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd decided it was handled.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cYeah.\u201d<\/p>\n
She was silent for a long time.<\/p>\n
Then she said, \u201cThat may be the worst part.\u201d<\/p>\n
I understood.<\/p>\n
Bad systems could hide.<\/p>\n
This one had been seen.<\/p>\n
And somebody with authority had decided seeing it was enough.<\/p>\n
By the end of the week, twelve former drivers had produced evidence that they had complained before the storm ever happened. Twelve. Some had emailed HR. Two had called an … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":24609,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insightdrama"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24623"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24658,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24623\/revisions\/24658"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/24609"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/insightdrama.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}