from Patrick McKenzie | by Patrick McKenzie

I tried to do a routine thing between two Japanese financial institutions. It takes two months and I just got a postcard saying it was denied because there were no responsive records. This usually means someone in the chain has a disagreement as to what my name is. But no.

It appears what actually happened is that one of the extremely regulated financial institutions, which of course I will avoid naming for social considerations, had possession of a number. That number is similar in character to a social security number. It is an important number.

Sometime between that number, which has doubtless percolated between various systems both at them and at e.g. governmental organizations, entering their systems, and the present day, the number *changed* to *a wrong number.*

I am attempting to compose a letter, in my best salaryman Japanese, which conveys both that I understand that operational errors are a thing and also suggests, in a fashion so polite that the paint in their office will peel if read aloud, that they get their #%*(# together.

And part of the reason for me reading this letter back several times is that I do not want to spend the next several months project managing the consequences of their #*((#% not being together for the past extended period of time, and want to offload that to them.

This is requiring me to use strong language that my inner salaryman recoils at having to put in writing to a financial institution, like "inappropriate."

Got back a reply. Timely, responsive, absolutely unsatisfactory. "If the firm feels it is again unable to discharge these responsibilities, please set forth such reasons as you have, on paper, in a format you believe appropriate for consultations with the Ministry of $REDACTED."

Beware the professionally annoyed Japanese salaryman; we are capable of faxing stuff up.

Which reminds me, memo to self re: future Dangerous Professional writing guide: frequently, target organizations will say "Oh we didn't X because you didn't Y; you have to start over." You can acknowledge that without agreeing to it, and should.

Lawyers call this "preserving an objection" (on the record, for an appeal, etc); it is occasionally important that you be able to operate in a reality constructed by a counterparty without agreeing that it represents actual reality.

How to phrase this? Many ways; in English one that I often used was "For your convenience I have attached the $FOO you requested in your response to my earlier letter. I reiterate that you continue to have not performed $X. You are required to do so."

Why does one care about this? Because most bureaucracies will take the position that their shot clock for doing the thing starts from $FOO, and you should preserve the option that their shot clock dated to before the earlier letter and is running even if they are incompetent.

And, in the case where they discover a $BAR that they also need (extremely common!), their incompetence doesn't get them *another* extension. It just compounds their existing lateness.

"Shot clock?" An Americanism (from basketball). There are a number of state machines, including very commonly in financial regulation, where an institution must resolve a complaint within a specified time period or they will be deemed to have lost it on the merits.

Many institutions will—frequently not even as a strategic choice!—start counting from when they received what they consider their most recent ticket about an issue. The effective Dangerous Professional says "I reject your ticketing system's view of reality and substitute my own"